Doping controls

CONTROLS IN PRACTICE

In 2018, work continued on the implementation of the doping control policy, which was drawn up in close partnership with NOC*NSF. 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 studies and specific and/or supplementary analyses fell slightly in 2018. 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.

Intelligence & Investigations is housed with the Enforcement & Investigations department. The merger of the Doping Control and Intelligence & Investigations processes resulted in direct exchanges of information optimal collaboration.

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 use or stop in response to the doping control programme.

Registered Testing Pool (RTP)
On the basis of the amended World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and the associated International Standards, the Doping Authority established a 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 medicines, they must apply for a therapeutic use exemption from the TUE committee. They must also provide whereabouts information and attend an education session organised by the Doping Authority.
There were 11 sports associations with athletes in the RTP in 2018. That is fewer than in 2017 (12 sports associations). The number of athletes in the RTP was higher than in 2017: 367 athletes at the beginning of 2018 as opposed to 322 athletes at the beginning of 2017. Once again in 2018, 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) is being 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 2018, 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, to determine where athletes were to be found.

Controls conducted - general
The Doping Authority conducted two types of doping control for Dutch sports in 2018: 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, foreign National Anti-Doping Organisations and professional sports 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 Anti-Doping Organisations.

The national programme – underlying principles
As in previous years, the Ministry of Sport and NOC*NSF made funding available in 2018 for the implementation of the national control programme on behalf of the Dutch sports associations. The annual plan for 2018 included a national programme of some 2,500 doping controls. However, in the end, the available budget meant that a national programme of approximately 2,250 controls only was possible in 2018. The programme was therefore revised downwards in the course of 2018. Approximately 15% of these controls were earmarked for target controls, follow-up investigations, and for doping controls pursuant to records and compliance with official limits. On the basis of the anti-doping policy, the Doping Authority divided the remaining controls (approximately 85%) 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 2018, 2,257 controls were conducted as part of the national control programme. The overwhelming majority (2,002) were urine controls. There were also 255 blood controls in 2018, for example in the context of the Athlete Biological Passport. That is fewer than in 2017 (-13%). This fall can be explained by the fact that the target for 2018 was adjusted in the course of 2018 to 2,250 doping controls. The national programme implemented in 2017 comprised 2,408 doping controls.
The 2,257 doping controls conducted as part of the national control programme covered 30 Olympic sports and 18 non-Olympic sports in a ratio of 89:11. 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. Football

The percentage of out-of-competition controls (blood and urine) in the national programme was 48%. This is a slight fall compared with 2017 (55%).
Of the 2,257 doping controls (blood and urine) conducted for sports in the Netherlands, 1,292 involved men (57%) and 965 women (43%).

Doping controls for third parties
The Royal Dutch Football Association (KNVB) and the Royal Dutch Cycling Union (KNWU) have financed an additional doping control programme alongside the national programme for Dutch competitions.
Various Dutch associations and sports organisations have purchased additional controls from the Doping Authority for international events in the Netherlands. And controls have been carried out for foreign organisations and for professional sports organisations. A total of 888 doping controls were conducted on the basis of assignments from third parties, an increase of 48% compared with 2017, when this category amounted to 600 controls. This increase is largely due to the agreement the Doping Authority made with the cycling team Team Sunweb in the context of an independent additional doping control programme to be conducted out of competition.
The majority of the additional doping controls conducted for Dutch and foreign associations and organisers were in-competition controls (67%). Seventy-one percent of the doping controls for third parties were for men and 29% were for 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 2018. A total of 3,145 doping controls were conducted.

Total number of doping controls: the top five

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

The total number of 3,145 doping controls for Dutch sports and sports organisations represents was 4.6% higher than in 2017, when there were 3,008 doping controls.

Whereabouts-fouten
A total of 31 definitive whereabouts failures were registered in 2018. Whereabouts failures can be either Missed tests (when the athlete is not present at the stated location in the 60 minute time slot) or Filing failures (the failure to supply adequate whereabouts information correctly and in good time).
The number of whereabouts failures fell in 2018 by 33% by comparison with 2017 (when there were 46 cases). In 2018, no athlete was found to have two whereabouts filing failures in a twelve-month period. Nor were any athletes found to have made a third whereabouts filing failure in a period of twelve months.

The leading numbers of definitive whereabouts failures were accounted for by the Judo Association, the Athletics Union, and the Cycling Union in that order. 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 2018, the Judo Association accounted for most whereabouts failures; the Rowing Union led this list in 2017.

Doping controls that did not take place
In addition to the controls that did not take place due to a missed test, 103 planned doping controls failed to take place in 2018 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 (DCO) 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 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, where appropriate by scheduling 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. WADA's Technical Document for Sport Specific Analysis (TDSSA) includes 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 2018, the analyses of 43% of the 2,257 doping controls in the national programme checked the urine and/or blood samples for Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs). This percentage was lower than in 2017 (50%). The ESA analyses covered a range of relevant sports disciplines, with cycling, skating, athletics, swimming and triathlon at the top of the list (in absolute terms).

The urine and/or blood samples collected in 33% of 2,257 controls were also analysed for the presence of human growth hormone (GH) and/or Growth Hormone Releasing Factors (GHRFs). This percentage was lower than in 2017 (41%). The samples came from a range of sports, with the leading sports in absolute numbers being cycling, athletics, football and swimming.

In addition (as in 2017), various samples were also analysed for testosterone. Furthermore, large numbers of blood samples were taken to check for growth hormone, ESAs and Haemoglobin-Based Oxygen Carriers (HBOCs).

In 2018, 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 controls was the same as in 2017 at 44%, almost the same percentage as in 2017 (46%). 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. In 2018, the number of blood controls carried out on behalf of ABP in relation to the national programme remained more or less the same.
A total of 172 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 was the same as in 2017, when 171 samples were taken.

Mobile doping control station
The Authority had a mobile doping control station at its disposal in 2018 with facilities for collecting blood samples. It was used at locations where it was difficult to establish a permanent doping control station or where doping control stations did not comply with the relevant criteria. The mobile doping control station was used in 2018 for, among other sports, outdoor sports such as motor sports, cycling and climbing and mountaineering.

Findings
In 2018, 32 files with adverse (analytical and non-analytical) findings were registered with the Doping Authority. In 30 cases, the adverse findings related to A urine samples. The finding was non-analytical in one case and there was an adverse blood passport result in one case.
The incidence of adverse findings (including non-analytical findings) was, with 32 files in 3,145 controls – 1.0%. By comparison with the number of urine controls, this is 1.1%. The percentage was lower than in 2017 (2.4%), primarily because of a sharp decline in the number of files for which specific follow-up investigations were required (see below).

Files for which specific follow-up investigations were required
Of the 30 registered files with adverse findings for the A urine samples, nine 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 78% less than in 2017 (40 files). This decrease is a result of the introduction of the use of ADAMS by the Doping Authority in 2017 and the associated access to global longitudinal information about athletes, as well as the introduction of the steroids passport. The information in ADAMS and the Athlete Biological Passport renders many follow-up investigations unnecessary.
Four cases involved a testosterone/epitestosterone ratio higher than 4. There were also five cases of an adverse passport finding. In virtually all these cases, the Doping Authority requested isotope ratio mass spectrometry analysis (IRMS) and/or additional doping controls in 2018. 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.

Files closed on the grounds of therapeutic use exemptions
In seven 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 files were therefore closed and did not result in proceedings with the disciplinary committee of the sports association in question.
In one case, before the binding result was reported to the association by the Doping Authority, the TUE Committee granted an exemption after all for the use of the substance found. The relevant athlete was not in the Doping Authority's Registered Testing Pool. This file was therefore closed and did not result in proceedings with the sports association in question either.

Classification according to the WADA Prohibited List
Upon classification at the group level in accordance with the 2018 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 38 times in the 30 adverse A urine samples referred to above.

One urine sample contained three prohibited substances and/or metabolites of those substances and six samples contained two prohibited substances or metabolites.

There were findings in the category of stimulants in 15 of the 38 cases. On twelve occasions, these were anabolic substances, and hormone and metabolic modulators and/or metabolites were found on seven occasions. There was a striking increase in the last three categories by comparison with 2017.

The percentage in the category of anabolic substances fell by comparison with 2017 by approximately 80%. This fall was mainly attributable to the lower number of urine samples with a T/E ratio exceeding 4 and/or with an atypical steroid profile (from 40 to 9).

Anti-doping rule violations/cases resulting in proceedings
In three cases in 2018, the Doping Authority made a proposal regarding a sanction to the athletes in question before initiating proceedings with the sports associations in question. All the athletes accepted the proposal. One of these three cases involved a violation noted by the French-speaking Belgian National Anti-Doping Organisation in which result management was transferred to the Doping Authority.

In 2018, the Doping Authority initiated proceedings in 11 cases (2017:15) in eight different sports because of possible infringements of the regulations of the sports association involved. All these cases involved men. Combat sports accounted for the highest number of cases (three).

One case is still being processed by the Doping Authority and it has therefore not yet resulted in proceedings with the relevant sports federation. The total number of cases in which the Doping Authority was involved in management was therefore 15.

The percentage of cases in which proceedings were initiated pursuant to controls conducted on Dutch territory by the Doping Authority as part of the national programme was 0.6% (14 cases subject to national anti-doping regulations resulting from 2,257 doping controls conducted as part of the national programme). This percentage complies with the stated target for 2018 of a maximum of 1% positive cases in Dutch athletes.

* A control in Belgium in which result management by the NADO was transferred to the Doping Authority