Doping controls

Controls in practice

General
In 2017, work continued on the implementation of the doping control policy, which was drawn up in close partnership with NOC*NSF in 2007. The emphasis of the doping controls is on the very top levels of Dutch sports. In addition, the Doping Authority was able to conduct targeted controls for specific individuals and/or groups at competition levels immediately below the very top. The number of follow-up investigations and specific, supplementary analyses increased further once again in 2017. Considerable attention was also paid to the whereabouts system. Some elite athletes, if they are members of national or international registered testing pools, are required to report some of their daily activities to the Doping Authority or the international federation. In view of the increasing number of doping controls to be conducted in 2017 and 2018, the Doping Authority trained new doping control officials (DCOs) in 2016 and 2017. A total of eleven new doping control officials received training in two training rounds. Some of them completed the internal training course in 2017. One DCO terminated the employment contract with the Doping Authority in 2017 for personal reasons. The employment contracts of three DCOs were not extended or were terminated for various reasons. Unfortunately, one doping control official passed away entirely unexpectedly in 2017. As a result, the total number of doping control officials available for deployment was 20 at year-end 2017, which is less than the optimal number. Intelligence & Investigations is housed with the Enforcement & Investigations department. The merging of the processes Doping control and Intelligence & Investigations has led to the direct exchange of information, optimal collaboration and effective working methods. Doping controls are the main tool at our disposal for investigating doping violations but they are also important in terms of prevention. This chapter reports on the number of doping violations identified on the basis of doping controls and on the nature of those violations. However, it is not known how many athletes refrain from doping or stop in response to the doping control programme.

Registered Testing Pool (RTP)
Pursuant to the elaboration of the amended World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the associated International Standards, the Doping Authority established a new Registered Testing Pool (RTP). Athletes in the RTP of the Doping Authority are required to comply with a number of obligations. For example, before using any medicines, they must apply for a therapeutic use exemption from the TUE committee. They must also provide whereabouts information and attend an information meeting organised by the Doping Authority.

There were 12 sports associations with athletes in the RTP in 2017. That is fewer than in 2016 (13 sports associations). The number of athletes in the RTP was higher than in 2016: 322 athletes at the beginning of 2017 as opposed to 317 athletes at the beginning of 2016. Once again in 2017, athletes were only required to provide whereabouts information to one organisation: either the Doping Authority or the international federation. The Doping Authority began in mid-2017 with the phased introduction of the whereabouts module of the global ADAMS administration and management system, and Sportergegevens (the Doping Authority's own whereabouts system that was developed in-house) will be phased out. Centralising the whereabouts information in a single system helps to establish efficient mutual cooperation and information exchanges between the Doping Authority, international federations and National Anti-Doping Organisations from other countries. But more importantly, it also helps the athletes involved to meet their obligations in a clear and consistent way. In 2017, as in previous years, the Doping Authority also drew extensively on information from external sources such as the websites of national and international federations, Twitter and Facebook.

Controls conducted - general
The Doping Authority conducted two types of doping control for Dutch sports in 2017: controls in the context of the Dutch national programme, and doping controls on behalf and for the account of third parties, including Dutch and international federations, event organisers and foreign National Anti-Doping Organisations. The Doping Authority's responsibilities also included controls pursuant to official records, target controls when there were specific suspicions, and various types of follow-up investigations. Controls in the Netherlands included not only Dutch athletes, but also athletes from other countries who were present in the Netherlands. They were sometimes conducted on behalf of other ADOs.

The national programme – underlying principles
As in previous years, the Ministry of Sport and NOC*NSF made funding available in 2017 for the implementation of the national control programme on behalf of the Dutch sports associations. The total available budget meant that a national programme of approximately 2,250 controls was possible in 2017. In accordance with the policy agreed upon with NOC*NSF, approximately 600 of these controls were earmarked for controls pursuant to records and qualification limits, for the implementation of target controls and for follow-up investigations. On the basis of the anti-doping policy, the Doping Authority divided the other urine controls amounting to approximately 1,650 between the sports associations. A mathematical distribution model based on international guidelines, and including information such as sport-specific physiological characteristics and international and national doping incidence statistics, is used to decide on this allocation.

The national programme – implementation
In 2017, 2,408 controls were conducted as part of the national control programme. The overwhelming majority (2,115) were urine controls. There were also 293 blood controls in 2017, for example in the context of the Athlete Biological Passport. This was a substantial increase by comparison with 2016 (+20%). The 2,408 doping controls conducted as part of the national control programme covered 31 Olympic sports and 17 non-Olympic sports in a ratio of 91:9. There were no doping controls in a number of non-Olympic sports that are less susceptible to doping, examples being mind sports.

Doping controls in the National Control Programme: the top five

1. Skating
2. Cycling
3. Athletics
4. Swimming
5. Rowing

The percentage of out-of-competition controls (blood and urine) in the national programme was 55%. This is in line with 2016 (57%). Of the 2,408 doping controls (blood and urine) conducted for sports in the Netherlands, 1,327 involved men (55%) and 1,081 involved women (45%).

Doping controls for third parties
The Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB), the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) and the Athletics Union have financed an additional doping control programme alongside the national programme for Dutch competitions. In addition, NOC*NSF commissioned additional doping controls for athletes who qualified for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in PyeongChang, in so far as these athletes had not yet been included in the RTP of the Doping Authority. Various Dutch associations and sports organisations have purchased additional controls from the Doping Authority for international events in the Netherlands. A total of 600 doping controls were conducted on the basis of assignments from third parties. This was a fall of approximately 17.5% by comparison with 2016 when a total of 727 controls were conducted in this way. The decrease is partly because doping controls at international skating competitions in the Netherlands are now conducted by commercial service providers from other countries. The majority of the additional doping controls conducted for Dutch and foreign associations and organisers were in-competition controls (89%). The doping controls for third parties involved 374 men and 226 women.

Doping controls - total
The controls for the national control programme and the controls for third parties together make up the total doping control programme in 2017. A total of 3,008 doping controls were conducted.

Total number of doping controls: the top five

1. Cycling
2. Skating
3. Athletics
4. Swimming
5. Football

The total number of 3,008 doping controls for Dutch sports and sports organisations represents an increase of 7.9% by comparison with 2016, when there were 2,788 doping controls.

Whereabouts failures
A total of 46 definitive whereabouts failures were registered in 2017. Whereabouts failures can be either missed tests (when the athlete is not present at the stated location in the one hour/60 minute time slot) or filing failures (the failure to supply adequate whereabouts information correctly and in good time). The number of whereabouts failures increased by 59% in 2017 by comparison with 2016 (when there were 29 cases). In 2017, three athletes were found to have two whereabouts filing failures in a twelve-month period. No athletes were found to have a third whereabouts filing failure in a period of twelve months.

The leading numbers of definitive whereabouts failures were accounted for by the Rowing Association, the Athletics Union, the Swimming Association, the Cycling Union and the Skating Association. It should be pointed out that associations with a large number of athletes in the Registered Testing Pool are more likely to have athletes who fail to meet whereabouts obligations. In 2017, the Rowing Union accounted for most whereabouts failures; the Athletics Union and the Swimming Association led this list in 2016.

Doping controls that did not take place
In addition to the controls that did not take place due to a missed test, 42 planned doping controls failed to take place in 2017 for other reasons:
1) athletes/teams were absent from events and competitions and central training sessions which they were expected to attend;
2) the doping control official went to a training session or competition, and it then emerged that the training session or competition had been cancelled or moved;
3) a doping control official (DCO) visited an address that had been reported and the athlete proved to be absent during the control window or was not/no longer resident at the address (in the case of doping controls for which the athlete in question was not required to supply whereabouts information).

These included both out-of-competition and in-competition controls. When doping controls were not conducted, efforts were made to find an appropriate moment as quickly as possible thereafter to conduct the control in question or to schedule a comparable event.

Sport-specific analyses
On the basis of a risk analysis, the relevant standards of the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) for sports and sports disciplines include a specific calculation for the minimum percentages required for additional laboratory analyses. The Technical Document Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA) includes, as a part of the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, binding provisions that apply to National Anti-Doping Organisations, including the Doping Authority. The analyses relate to, among other things, erythropoietin-like substances and growth hormones. The minimum number of specific additional analyses is expressed as a percentage of the number of doping controls conducted in a sport (percentage of additional analyses in addition to the standard analysis package).

In 2017, the analyses of 50% of the 2,408 controls in the national programme checked the urine and/or blood samples for Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs). This is an increase by comparison with 2016 (47%). The ESA analyses covered a range of relevant sports disciplines, with skating, cycling, athletics, swimming and football at the top of the list (in absolute terms).

The urine and/or blood samples collected in 41% of 2,408 controls were also analysed for the presence of human growth hormone (GH) or Growth Hormone Releasing Factors (GHRFs). This was more than in 2016 (39%). The samples came from a range of sports, with the leading sports in absolute numbers being skating, cycling, athletics, swimming and football.

In addition (as in 2016), various samples were also analysed for insulin and/or testosterone. Furthermore, large numbers of blood samples were taken to check for growth hormone, ESAs and Haemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers (HBOCs).

In 2017, some of the urine samples were stored to allow for the possibility of repeat analyses at some time in the future.

Unannounced doping controls
The total percentage of out-of-competition doping controls was 46%, the same as in 2016. Almost all doping controls were conducted without prior warning for the athlete ('no advance notice testing'). The only exceptions were doping controls triggered by a record or limit; in these cases, the initiative for the control resides with the athlete or the athlete's association.

Target controls
The Doping Authority has the authority to conduct target controls. These controls are conducted in specific cases and on the basis of criteria determined beforehand. Target controls took place throughout the sports spectrum, with the emphasis being on a few specific sports and individuals, and controls also being conducted on occasion at the level just below the very top. The Intelligence & Investigations chapter contains more information about this area.

Athlete Biological Passport
In this system, several blood samples are taken over time from selected athletes from a range of sports for the purposes of establishing longitudinal profiles. The number of blood controls for ABP was raised further in 2017. A total of 171 blood samples were collected for the purposes of the Athlete Biological Passport. These blood controls were conducted in the following sports: athletics, skating, triathlon, cycling and swimming. The number of ABP controls rose by comparison with 2016, when 152 samples were taken.

Mobile doping control station
The Doping Authority has a mobile doping control station at its disposal with facilities for collecting blood samples. It can be used at locations where it is difficult to establish a permanent doping control station or where doping control stations do not comply with the relevant criteria. The mobile doping control station was used in 2017 for, among other sports, outdoor sports such as cycling and equestrian sports, and for climbing and mountaineering.

Findings
In 2017, 71 cases with adverse (analytical and non-analytical) findings were registered with the Doping Authority. In 68 cases, the adverse findings related to A urine samples; the finding was non-analytical in two cases. The incidence of adverse findings (including non-analytical findings) – 71 in 3,008 controls – was 2.4%. By comparison with the number of urine controls, this is 2.7%. The percentage was 0.8% down on 2016 (3.2%), primarily because of a decline in the number of cases in which specific follow-up investigations were required (see below).

Cases for which specific follow-up investigations were required
Of the 68 registered cases with adverse findings for the A urine samples, 40 involved atypical findings for which specific follow-up investigations were required with the aim of determining whether there had been a possible doping violation. This was 34% less than in 2016 (61 cases). This decrease is a result of the introduction of the use of ADAMS by the Doping Authority in 2017 and the access to global longitudinal information about athletes, as well as the introduction of the steroids passport. Thirty cases involved a testosterone/epitestosterone ratio higher than 4. There were also ten cases of an adverse passport finding. In 2017, the Doping Authority initiated isotope ratio mass spectrometry analysis (IRMS) and/or additional doping controls where necessary (on the basis of the athlete's steroids passport). The follow-up investigations showed that the atypical result was not attributable to exogenous factors and the Doping Authority therefore classified the results as non-adverse findings.

Cases closed on the grounds of therapeutic use exemptions
In five cases, it was found that a therapeutic use exemption had already been granted prior to the doping control for the therapeutic use of the prohibited substance found. These cases were therefore closed and did not result in proceedings with the disciplinary committee of the sports association in question. In three instances, the TUE Committee granted an exemption after all before the binding result was reported to the association by the Doping Authority for the use of the substance found. The relevant athletes were not included in the Doping Authority's Registered Testing Pool. These cases were therefore closed and did not result in proceedings with the sports association in question.

Classification according to the WADA Prohibited List
Upon classification at the group level in accordance with the 2017 WADA Prohibited List, a prohibited substance (or metabolite of such a substance), a high T/E ratio, or an atypical steroid profile was found a total of 92 times in the 68 adverse A urine samples referred to above.

Two urine sample contained five prohibited substances and/or metabolites; one sample contained four prohibited substances and/or metabolites, two samples contained three prohibited substances and/or metabolites and nine samples contained two prohibited substances and/or metabolites.

There were findings in the category of anabolic substances in 61 of the 92 cases. These were stimulants on 19 occasions and metabolites of cannabinoids were found four times. The numbers in the last two categories were higher than in 2016.

The percentage in the category of anabolic substances was approximately 23% lower than in 2016. This fall was attributable to the lower number of urine samples with a T/E ratio exceeding 4 and/or with an atypical steroid profile (from 61 to 40). However, the number of substances found in this category increased by comparison with 2016 (from 18 to 21).

Anti-doping rule violations/cases resulting in proceedings
In five cases in 2017, the Doping Authority made a proposal regarding a sanction to the athletes in question before initiating proceedings with the sports associations in question. All athletes accepted the proposal. One of these five cases involved a violation noted by the international athletics federation in which result management was transferred to the Doping Authority.

In one case, the case was closed by the Doping Authority as evidence was found that the finding was the result of a medical condition that was not known to the person concerned prior to the control.
In one case, the Doping Authority withdrew a pending case as a result of omissions in the TUE process at another anti-doping organisation.
In another instance, two findings were merged into one case since the same athlete was involved twice in a short period of time.
In 2017, the Doping Authority initiated proceedings in fifteen cases (2016: 14) in eight different sports because of possible infringements of the regulations of the sports association involved. In one instance, the result was from a doping control conducted in the Netherlands by the Doping Authority involving a foreign athlete covered by international anti-doping regulations. Result management for this control was transferred by the Doping Authority to the National Anti-Doping Organisation (NADO) in question.
A total of 15 different people were involved (14 men and 1 woman). Baseball and/or softball, strength sports and the martial arts accounted for the highest number of cases: three in each category.
The total number of cases in which the Doping Authority was involved in management was therefore 23.

The percentage of cases initiated pursuant to controls conducted on Dutch territory by the Doping Authority as part of the national programme was 0.8% (19 cases subject to national anti-doping regulations resulting from 2,408 doping controls conducted as part of the national programme). This percentage is below the stated target for 2017 of a maximum of 1% positive cases in Dutch athletes.

* This was a control in Italy under international anti-doping rules, with result management being transferred by the IF to the Doping Authority
** The same athlete was involved.