The Red Bulls team manager claims the doping violation was unintentional. Conway and Parke allegedly purchased a sports nutrition product from a nationwide dietary supplement chain (“Jon Conway, Jeff Parke suspended from Red Bulls for substance abuse,” October 16).

According to Red Bulls manager director Erik Stover, both players said “that they ingested an over-the-counter supplement that unknowingly contained a banned substance.”

The statement seems to imply that there was no indication that the banned substance androstatriendione (ATD) was listed on the label of the OTC supplement product. Most likely androstatriendione was listed with a synonymous chemical name e.g. 3,17-dioxo-etiochol-1,4,6-triene or 3 17-keto-etiochol-triene; furthermore ATD and the veterinarian steroid boldenone share at least one metabolite potentially resulting in a false positive for boldenone. Ignorance or naivete regarding supplement ingredients by drug-tested athletes rarely succeeds in exonerating them from anti-doping policy violations.

UPDATE: The product used by Parke was purportedly ALRI Jungle Warfare.

Products containing androstatriendione (ATD) are very popular in the sports nutrition marketplace. One of the most popular products in this category is Gaspari Nutrition’s Novedex XT. Novedex XT is, by all accounts, completely legal and DSHEA-compliant with all ingredients fully disclosed on the label. But if the anti-doping policy in an athlete’s sport has banned androstatriendione (ATD), then athletes would be wise to avoid all OTC supplements containing any and all modified or derivative versions of 1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD).

The problem facing drug-tested athletes who insist on using dietary supplements is that there are dozens of synoynms and derivatives of 1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione (ATD) that they must look for on supplement labels. According to Bruce Kneller, a supplement designer for Gaspari Nutrition and convicted steroid dealer who filed a patent on the pharmaceutical use of “1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione (“ATD”) for therapeutic uses,” there are at least 158 modified or derivatives of ATD.

Potential pharmaceutical uses of ATD as identified in Kneller’s patent application include:

A composition having modified or derivative of 1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione (“ATD”) will improve the health of mammalian subjects. The improvement of health is achieved with the administration of an effective amount of the at least one modified or derivative of 1,4,6-androstatriene-3,17-dione. Particularly, health is improved with administration of an effective amount for a mammal suffering from a gynecomastia, and/or estrogen-dependent cancer. Also, mammals recovering from steroid misuse/abuse with treatment in accordance with the present invention. Other improvements found to occur with an administration of ATD is that growth is enhanced and/or stimulated in developing mammals, particularly for short children whose epiphesial plates have not closed yet by delaying the closure of the plates. Male fertility can be improved via one or more effects on either gonadotropin releasing hormone, LH or FSH with administration of ATD. Administration of an effective amount of ATD increases athletic performance by increasing testosterone and lean muscle mass, shortens the recovery period in cases of severe trauma or burns, improves a mood of a mammal through improved anabolism.

The use of dietary supplements appears to put drug-tested athletes at significant risk for inadvertently ingesting prohibited substances even when the ingredients are listed on the product’s labels. Any supplement that purports to affect testosterone levels, etc. should raise a warning flag for athletes even if the ingredients are legal. Various legal supplement ingredients are banned in sports.

Stuart P. Cram, strategic marketing vice president at Thermo Fisher, reports that their company has numerous service engineers available 24 hours a day during the Beijing Olympics to maintain uninterrupted and efficient operation of the Thermo Fisher testing equipment. Chinese Anti-Doping Agency purchased several products from their company including:

• (2) Thermo Fisher DFS Sector Field gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) systems;
• (1) Thermo Fisher Delta V isotope ratio mass spectrometer – used to distinguish between “natural and synthetic steroids”;
• (4) Thermo Fisher triple-quadrupole TSQ Quantum Access liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) systems

Agilent Technologies supplies the China Anti-Doping Agency with the majority of their steroid testing and drug detection equipment. Stephen B. Crisp, international business development manager at Agilent, states that Agilent also has technicians available 24/7 to maintain the operational status of Agilent equipment that includes 18 liquid/mass stations and 19 gas/mass stations.

• Agilent 1200 Series LC/MS units
• Agilent 6400 Series triple-quadrupole LC/MS units
• Agilent 6100 Series single-quadrupole LC/MS units
• Agilent 6300 Series ion trap LC/MS
• Agilent 7890A GC/MS units
• (8) unspecified laboratory instrumentation

Crisp also reports that different screening methods are used for different sports depending on the performance enhancing drugs most prevalent in that particular sport.

The Beijing lab will use screening methods that vary depending on the drugs athletes tend to favor in a particular competition. “Different compounds are suspected in different sports,” Crisp explains.

Phenomenex is a manufacturer of solid-phase extraction columns used in both GC/MS and LC/MS equipment. The separation columns are used to prepare samples for analysis according to Terrell Matthews, product manager for Phenomenex.

Important to the efficient operation of GC/MS and LC/MS instruments at the Olympics are the solid-phase extraction columns that clean up and concentrate target compounds from urine for analysis, says Terrell Mathews, product manager for Phenomenex, a maker of separation columns. Sample purification steps can take 60% of a lab technician’s time and can be a significant source of lab errors, he says.

The new anti-doping lab in use at the 2008 Beijing Olympics will conduct approximately 4,500 drug tests during the Olympic games and will analyze samples for over 400 different drugs on the WADA list of banned substances in the following nine classes of performance enhancing drugs: anabolic steroids, hormones, beta-2 agonists, hormone antagonists and modulators, diuretics, stimulants, narcotics, cannabinoids, and glucocorticosteroids. Each different piece of testing equipment has a unique function in the drug testing process (“Olympics technology: Keeping ‘em Honest,” August 4).

Regardless of when or where a sample is gathered, its first stop after entering the testing lab is the Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph, which separates and detects the different components in the sample, isolating the banned substances from the normal biological molecules. The sample is vaporized with heat, and the gas enters the 7890A’s separation column. As the gas moves through the column, the different atomic weights of its component compounds cause them to travel at different speeds (the lighter ones exit the column first). By measuring the speed, amount and sequence at which the components exit the column, investigators can readily identify most substances on the banned list.

But some compounds, such as peptide hormones, are destroyed by the vaporization process, requiring use of a liquid chromatograph. Using the same principle as the gas chromatograph to separate molecules by atomic weight, the Agilent 1200 series liquid chromatograph substitutes a liquid solvent that moves through the column. The liquid solvent takes longer to separate the molecules but preserves the molecules that would otherwise be destroyed by the heat of vaporization.

“About three out of four samples are analyzed using gas chromatography, but use of liquid chromatography is increasing because many of the new compounds are destroyed by vaporization,” said Sheehan.

If either the gas- or liquid-chromatograph indicates a questionable substance is present, then the sample is submitted to the mass spectrometer, which can confirm the chemical identity of virtually any compound. The mass spectrometer measures the molecular weight of the questionable substance, producing a unique chemical fingerprint that is compared with the fingerprints of known banned substances, providing unambiguous confirmation of the gas- or liquid-chromatograph results.

The science of anti-doping is a complicated process and big business for laboratory equiipment manufacturers.

WADA refuses to worry about trivial genetic factors. WADA is loath to do longitudinal tests of athletes. WADA might find a variable that might refute their laboratory findings or challenge their presumption of laboratory perfection. WADA would never invest time and money doing pedigree studies to determine if a single metabolite above threshold for exogenous testosterone is a trait common in a family, or among a group of people found in a geographical region. But idiosyncratic individual differences in medicine have been documented in many pedigree studies. For example, hematocrit levels above 50% have been found in fathers and sons of elite cyclists. These hematocirt levels are inherited tendencies, not based on EPO doping. The same is true for testosterone/epitestosterone ratio(s) and may be true for Carbon Isotope metabolite delta/delta scores.

Personally, I’ve always been suspicious and critical of the arbitrary 50% hematocrit level as an indicator of EPO doping. Why? My hematocrit level has regularly and consistently exceeded 50% for the past 15 years and I’ve never used EPO. I may be an outlier, but I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of elite endurance athletes fall into the outlier category on various physiologic parameters.

The unreliability of the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test (T:E ratio) and WADA’s insistence on its infallibility only further undermines the credibility of WADA.

It would be nice to believe that the isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) [used in the carbon isotope ratio testing (CIR) to detect exogenous testosterone use] is 100% reliable as WADA would suggest. But Velo Vortmax explains why we shouldn’t just trust WADA with this test.

The IRMS is an instrument that requires very precise controls of operation. The results of an IRMS is only as good as the laboratory performing the tests. Inexperienced laboratory personnel who cannot follow sequential steps in testing cannot be expected to arrive at the correct results. A valid IRMS is also only as good as the science behind the tests. A valid IRMS is only as good as the criteria required in WADA technical documents, by international standards, and by standardized criteria as to constitutes a positive result. WADA has failed in all these areas.

One hundred years from now will the scientists of the future shake their heads in amazement at our ignorance. Will they abhor the stupidity and mistakes of the anti-doping crusade? Will they be forced to restore the honor to “fallen” athletes?

Is it any surprise that there is a fair amount of skepticism regarding WADA’s new human growth hormone testing kits?

Source: Wikipedia

The scientific and anti-doping community continue to struggle with the development a test for exogenous growth hormone in athletes. They haven’t even been able to produce scientific evidence that growth hormone enhances athletic performance in spite of anecdotal evidence [from athletes and strength coaches] that this is the case.

But science continues to do a good job at finding weakness in the doping controls currently in place. Tip of the hat to Trust But Verify for alerting us of a new study which, among other things, tells us exactly how much exogenous testosterone some athletes can use and still pass the drug test.

The study reveals serious weaknesses in the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test used by WADA and other anti-doping organizations (“Doping Test in Sports Confounded by Common Genetic Trait,” March 21).

The current first-line defense for detecting testosterone abuse in sports is to measure the ratio of two chemicals in a spot urine test: testosterone glucuronide (TG) and epitestosterone glucuronide (EG). TG is a by-product of testosterone in the body; it increases as the amount of testosterone increases. EG is unrelated to testosterone metabolism, and serves as a reference point in testing.

In doping tests, any ratio above four, according to the International Olympic Committee, should be considered suspicious and lead to further testing.

It appears that certain genotypes are more likely to have false negatives (athletes use testosterone but don’t get caught)and other genotypes are more likely to have false positives (innocent athletes test positive for steroid use).

The production of TG from testosterone, however, is primarily controlled by an enzyme (UGT2B17), which is produced by a specific gene. Common variations to this gene may give rise to wildly different testing results, even when the same dose of testosterone has been taken.

For their study, the researchers screened 145 men for the insertion (ins) or deletion (del) of this gene. Among the participants, 15 percent had no copies of the gene (del/del), 52 percent had one copy (ins/del), and 33 percent carried two copies (ins/ins).

From this group, the researchers selected 55 men (17 del/del, 24 ins/del, and 14 ins/ins) to receive a single 360 mg dose of testosterone. The men were then routinely tested over a 15-day period for the telltale signs of doping.

If you’re a genetically gifted athlete (i.e. you lack the gene that produces the enzyme UGT2B17), you can take an whopping injection of at least 360 milligrams of testosterone without getting caught by the testosterone:epitestosterone ratio test (T:E ratio). This testosterone loophole in drug testing has been known by athletes for decades (anecdotally). It is nice to have solid scientific evidence to confirm it.

A full 40 percent of the del/del subjects never reached the detection threshold in a standard doping test. “Nearly half of the individuals in our study who carried this genetic variation would go undetected in a regular doping test after a single 360 mg dose of testosterone,” said Dr. Schulze.

If you were born without the genetics to beat a drug test, then you have a fair chance of failing the drug test even if you are innocent.

Of equal interest, 14 percent of the ins/ins subjects were naturally over the detection threshold even without receiving a testosterone injection. Based on an earlier study, the researchers estimate that this would give a false-positive rate of 9 percent in a random population of young men. “False positive results are not only of concern for the legal rights of the sportsman,” said Dr. Schulze, “they also yield extra workload for the doping laboratories.”

Maybe athletes will start taking advantage of relatively inexpensive personal genome services to learn things like the likelihood of side effects from anabolic steroids and the likelihood of being able to get away with using banned substances?

Most importantly, this study provides solid evidence that innocent athletes can be falsely accused when relying on the T:E ratio test.

A few other things learned:

• A level playing field doesn’t exist even at the genotypic level even when it comes to the ability escape doping detection

• Could there be a rogue chemist who discovered a pharmaceutical drug that can block the UGT2B17 enzyme?

• Certain “ethnic populations” are more/less likely to get caught when using banned substances like testosterone (e.g. East Asians and Swedish Caucasians).

I look forward to reading the full text of the study when it is released.

The paper “Doping Test Results Dependent on Genotype of UGT2B17, the Major Enzyme for Testosterone Glucuronidation” will appear in the June issue of [Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism] JCEM, a publication of The Endocrine Society.

The lawsuit alleges that USADA cheated violated anti-doping rules and regulations when they asked the UCLA laboratory to test the ‘B’ even though the ‘A’ sample came back negative. Since a positive results on a doping test can only occur when both the ‘A’ sample and the ‘B’ sample are positive, the only reason to test the ‘B’ sample was to intimidate the cyclist and/or damage the reputation of the cyclist.

The lawsuit also alleges USADA has informed race organizers that is under a doping investigation thereby harming his ability to secure sponsors and compete in cycling races. Such behavior also violates USADA rules that prohibit representatives of the USADA from discussing specific cases.

Leogrande is listed on the controversial Rock Racing California squad scheduled to compete in the Amgen Tour of California. Race organizers have stated that any rider with an active doping investigation will not be permitted to compete. Whether Leogrande is permitted to compete in the Tour of California remains to be seen.

Vyacheslav Fetisov, Russian sports minister who happens to be a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), expresses his admiration of USADA.

The Americans have made great strides in the fight against doping and we’re keen to learn more about their system.

The structure of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency will be modeled upon USADA. Travis Tygart, the CEO of USADA, believes USADA independent model of doping control has been effective.

Of course, not everyone believes USADA has been fair, must less competent and effective. Trust But Verify is amused that Russia is looking to the USADA for answers:

There’s something about the blind leading the blind that comes to mind, but the thought that RusADA is being formed only now is also mind blowing. This just in: rumours of sports doping behind the Iron Curtain.

Gary Gaffney, M.D., from the University of Iowa College of Medicine, offers a defense of TUEs in his blog:

If we support the idea of medical disabilities, then those disabilities should be treated.  A fine line may be drawn between those who would correct medical problems: vision, ADHD, and legitimate endocrine problems v. those who abuse the treatments.  The same medications to treat these conditions could be used as  PEDs; however, a proper diagnosis and prescription would prevent the TUE rule gamed to ‘cheat within the rules’.

There is a critical difference between treating a disease, and using a drug in a healthy athlete for a competitive advantage.  If well documented, an athlete deserves treatment for a medical condition, even with a banned drug.

I generally agree with Dr. Gaffney. I have always had a problem with “banned substances lists” that prevented athletes from medical treatments and medical comforts afforded to the rest of the non-drug-tested population. This is the reason for the existence of therapeutic use exemptions.

But any use of performance-enhancement drugs is problematic for anti-doping organizations:

(1) Even a therapeutic dosage of a performance-enhancing drug (or any other corrective medical procedure) for a legitimate medical condition can improve the athlete’s performance above and beyond mere correction of any disorder. Even a 1-2% improvement in performance can be significant for an elite athlete.

(2) Legitimizing performance-enhancing drug use for athletes with therapeutic use exemptions may not result in a desired outcome of “returning to normal” but a desired outcome of “being better than normal”.

(3) Also, this is all premised on the belief that the athlete is at a competitive disadvantage without the corrective (pharmaceutical) treatment.

A good example of the aforementioned potential problems can be seen in discussions of other corrective medical procedures used by athletes, namely laser eye surgery or LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis).

Tiger Woods was hardly at a competitive disadvantage with less than perfect vision. He apparently won 5 majors golf titles before correcting his vision. And with the procedure he returned to the course with better than normal vision, 20/15. Numerous other athletes have taken advantage of a corrective medical procedure for a legitimate medical condition to obtain a clear competitive advantage.

Golfers Scott Hoch, Hale Irwin, Tom Kite, and Mike Weir have hit the 20/15 mark. So have baseball players Jeff Bagwell, Jeff Cirillo, Jeff Conine, Jose Cruz Jr., Wally Joyner, Greg Maddux, Mark Redman, and Larry Walker. Amare Stoudemire and Rip Hamilton of the NBA have done it, along with NFL players Troy Aikman, Ray Buchanan, Tiki Barber, Wayne Chrebet, and Danny Kanell. These are just some of the athletes who have disclosed their results in the last five years. Nobody knows how many others have gotten the same result.

And then there’s the widely accepted Tommy Johns surgery. The therapeutic use exemptions for performance-enhancing drugs and permissible corrective medical procedures complicate the ethical discussion. If the patient were anyone other than a drug-tested athlete, there would be no hesitation on the part of the doctor or patient to make them as healthy and strong as medically possible – not just normal.

But ESPN found an “anti-doping expert” who claims that anabolic steroid injections represent a special type of intramuscular injection that is more likely to cause abscesses. According to Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

It is far less likely that any injection of vitamin B12 or lidocaine, which is usually not injected deep into the body, would have created an abscess… Steroid users tend to repetitively inject the drug deep into the muscle and this has been associated with the development of sterile abscess.

Seriously, there needs to be some sorta minimal standard by which individuals can be called doping experts. It is an unfounded and unsupported claim that an (unspecified) anabolic steroid injected intramuscularly is more or less likely to cause an abscess than an intramuscular B12 injection especially when injected repeatedly over time.

B12 injections are delivered via either intramuscular or subcutaneous injections. B12 is only injected subcutaneously when there is no acute deficiency and a more gradual release from the body’s fat stores is required. Most individuals, especially athletes, desire an immediate effect.

If Gary Wadler is stating that intramuscular injections are more likely to cause an abscess than a subcutaneous injection, he is correct. But his statements were carefully delivered to suggest steroid injections and not B12 injections cause abscesses.