The United States Government recently mandated that a sports nutrition company comply with aspects of the WADA Prohibited List as part of a criminal plea agreement.

The government did not simply require that the company produce dietary supplements compliant with the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the Anabolic Steroid Control Acts or any other relevant local, state and federal laws affecting the dietary supplement industry. The United States felt it necessary to incorporate a moral agenda above and beyond existing law into the plea agreement.

WADA supposedly exists to keep athletes in sports from doping. However, WADA’s dangerous influence threatens to influence laws that will affect tens of millions of ordinary people around the world who are not competitive athletes and have no aspirations of sports competition. They are simply individuals who are looking to feel better, to look better and to perform better with the help of supplements.

The requirement that any dietary supplement company follow the WADA code represents a disturbing trend in which WADA (and national anti-doping agencies operating under its directive) have aggressively sought to change international laws related to dietary supplements, anabolic steroids and performance-enhancing substances.

WADA has failed miserably at keeping steroids out of sports but they could have considerable success in influencing legislation affecting choice and freedom of ordinary consumers.

WADA has explicitly stated their desire for ALL national governments to criminalize the personal use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs as defined in the WADA code – for athletes and non-athletes alike.

The UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport has a stated objective of criminalizing personal non-medical steroid use by applying the force of international law behind the anti-doping WADA code. The Convention also calls for increased regulation of dietary supplement (ideally to be compliant with the WADA Prohibited List).

The biggest problems caused by using the WADA code as the basis for international law is the fact that the overwhelming majority of dietary/sports nutrition supplement users and non-medical steroid users are NOT athletes. They are simply ordinary responsible, law-abiding adults who use these substances as a tool to feel better, to increase muscle size and strength, to reduce bodyfat, and/or to enhance physical attractiveness.

If WADA succeeds in the moralization of international laws related to dietary supplements and performance-enhancing substances, we may soon see laws that mirror the moralistic WADA Code. Non-athletes will be they ones that suffer while doping in sport continues unfettered.

Contador tested positive for infinitesimally small amounts of clenbuterol. WADA has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to clenbuterol; any detected amount, no matter how small, is sufficient to impose a ban. Contador claims the clenbuterol present in his urine was the result of the consumption of meat contaminated with clenbuterol. Many experts think this is a very plausible explanation for the small amounts of clenbuterol discovered.

The most practical solution to this problem is to change the clenbuterol anti-doping criteria from a zero-tolerance policy to a threshold policy.

Unfortunately, people like Gary Wadler, who recently served on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Committee, prefer to take the ridiculously impractical approach. Wadler thinks all the governments of the world should change before WADA changes its policy. He feels governments should simply do a better job of keeping clenbuterol out of the food supply.

Read more at Steroids.Info: Experts Think Contador Innocence Possible in Clenbuterol Doping Case

Read more at Steroids.Info: NFL Gives Advance Notice for Steroid Tests?

“We’ve got the CFL,” Pound said. “It’s like a bad scene from the NHL. They say, ‘We don’t test in the Canadian Football League because we don’t need to test — there’s no drug use.’ Helloooo. We’re like a refuge for all the Americans… a summer camp for NFL players who have been suspended for drug use.”

This weekend, John Fahey, the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), publicly urged the CFL to adopt an anti-doping testing program. Fahey was in Montreal for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Executive Committee and Foundation Board meeting. Fahey made his comments just prior to the 2008 CFL Grey Cup Final between the Calgary Stampeders and the Montreal Alouettes (“WADA chief challenges CFL to join fight against drugs,” November 23).

“To be here in Montreal on the weekend of the Grey Cup final and to find there is no doping code is very disappointing,” Fahey told Reuters following a WADA board meeting. “I understand there have been discussions and I hope they eventually lead to fruition.
�
“There has been dialogue between WADA and the CFL over a period of time but that doesn’t suggest that there is anything imminent.
�
“I can only say I think they are draw attention to the game in an adverse way by not having a (doping) code.
�
“I don’t see how any sport cannot have an effective anti-doping program.”

The WADA chief’s criticisms of Canadian Football League’s lack of an effective steroid testing program were undermined by WADA board member and British IOC member Sir Craig Reedie who was also in Montreal for the WADA Foundation board meeting.

Sir Reedie hihglighted the failure to implement an effective anti-doping program at WADA due to the noncompliance of over half of the signatories to the WADA code at the 2008 Beijing Olympics (“Drug Rules ‘Not Enforced’,” November 23).

Rules that bind athletes to give details of their daily movements to drugs testers are not being enforced in “half the countries in the world”, it was claimed on Thursday [...]

Sir Craig Reedie, British IOC member and a board member of the WADA, said “half the world” was not operating the system properly – WADA regulations state that athletes must provide testers with their whereabouts for an hour each day.
�
Reedie said: “The one issue the world of sport will want clearing up is in relation to whereabouts regulations for athletes.
�
“What has come out of Beijing is that half the world operates the system properly and half the world does not.
�
“This has come out of a survey done of national Olympic committees, and some are struggling with the whereabouts rules.
�
“We have to get the system to work properly so that everyone is operating in the same way.”

The major failure to implement the WADA code by the majority of its signatories compounds the major failure of WADA procedures and protocols to effectively catch dopers. WADA has not developed an anti-doping protocol that effectively closes the testosterone loophole, that has ever detected human growth hormone in athletes, or has thwarted the use of numerous banned blood boosting techniques and drugs. The sad truth is that WADA’s steroid testing program, far from Fahey’s “effective anti-doping program,” is only marginally more effective than the CFL’s drug testing program i.e. no testing at all.

A recently published study in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology suggests that WADA has opened the door to social analysis and psychological profiling to catch steroids users and users of other banned substances. The WADA-funded researchers hope to establish a reliable indicator of self-reported use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The proposed anti-doping tool would ask the athlete various questions about their own self-reported doping, hypothetical doping scenarios, and the doping behavior of other athletes. If the athlete’s responses to the questionnaire fit the psychological profile of a doper, then this might represent evidence that athlete is doping even if the athlete does not admit to doping! The research is based on the False Consensus Effect from social psychology research.

[The False Consensus Effect is] the considerable overestimation of behaviour in which a person engages, and a slight underestimation of behaviour absent from a person’s repertoire. That is, over-estimating a particular behaviour indicates that the person who makes the estimate (and overestimates the behaviour) is likely to be engage in the same act.

[...]

The ‘False Consensus Effect’ (FCE), by which people perceive their own actions as relatively common behaviour, might be exploited to gauge whether a person engages in controversial behaviour, such as performance enhancing drug (PED) use. Hypothesis: It is assumed that people’s own behaviour, owing to the FCE, affects their estimation of the prevalence of that behaviour. It is further hypothesised that a person’s estimate of PED population use is a reliable indicator of the doping behaviour of that person, in lieu of self-reports.

An athlete that thinks most of his competitors are cheating must be cheating as well. This must be what WADA would call evidence of a non-analytical positive.

The researchers repeatedly emphasize that the measurement tool is not intended to catch dopers.

The measurement tool is to be used as a research tool to gather information on prevalence of PED use but it is not intended to be a diagnostic tool for individual assessment.

[...]

The importance of the method lies in its usefulness in epidemiological studies, not in individual assessments

But elsewhere in the article, researchers state that the measurement tool can explicitly be used to gain information about the individual assessed.

We propose to use estimates to gain information about the individual who makes the estimates and not the population for which the estimates are made.

[...]

The measurement tool is not envisaged to be used to gather data on projected use, but rather, employed as an implicit self-report method. A model will be developed to give an estimation of ‘own’ use based on the projected use.

Will WADA use the “false consensus” research as the “elegant integration of biochemistry, social psychology and statistics” in order to:

(1) Obtain reliable estimates of doping behaviour; or

(2) Obtain corroborating evidence that individual athletes are doping?

Source: Comfort in big numbers: does over-estimation of doping prevalence in others indicate self-involvement? (PDF)

The question of why and how clenbuterol appeared in Jessica Hardy’s sample remains a mystery. Was Hardy simply caught doping? Or were the “dietary supplements” used by Hardy contaminated or spiked with the banned substance clenbuterol? The supplement company Advocare was cited as one of the brands of dietary supplements used by Jessica Hardy.

Intentional doping

Why would Jessica Hardy take clenbuterol when drugs with similar performance-enhancing effects were legally available to her and all other swimmers with therapeutic use exemptions for asthma medications?

The performance enhancing effects of clenbuterol are not significantly different from those of other beta-2 agonists like albuterol, formoterol, salbutamol, salmeterol and terbutaline that are used by other Olympic swimmers. Swimming phenom Dara Torres uses the two legal beta-2 agonists (LABAs) Proventil (albuterol) and Symbicort (formoterol) and seems to be doing pretty well. Why would Hardy use an illegal drug when the legal PEDs are just as good?

Accidental doping

The quality control problems of dietary supplements are well known. Over the past several years, several reports have revealed that a significant percentage of supplements were contaminated with steroidal ingredients and/or stimulants. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) recently identified 22 supplements sold over the counter that contain anabolic steroids. Last month, a British study found that 1 in 10 supplements contain ingredients banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). A brief review of these reports did not find any evidence of dietary supplements showing cross-contamination with clenbuterol.

Most sports nutrition supplement companies have an official or unofficial disclaimer stating that their products are not intended for athletes competing in organizations subject to anti-doping procedures. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education (DSHEA) permits several products that are not permitted by WADA and other professional sports organizations. As a result, most supplement companies created products for the mass market of fitness enthusiasts, recreational athletes and bodybuilders rather than create WADA/IOC approved supplements for an infinitesimally small number of elite athletes.

Jessica Hardy publicly acknowledged using several supplements from Advocare. In fact, she endorsed the Advocare product line. Advocare listed the products used by Hardy on the “Our Endorsers” page for Jessica Hardy (which has been removed in the past week but is still cached by Google).

O₂ GOLD™
Rehydrate Electrolyte Replacement Drink
Arginine Extreme
AdvoCare® Muscle Fuel Pre-Workout Drink
Muscle Gain™ Protein Shake
Muscle Strength™
Nighttime Recovery
Post-Workout Recovery Sports Drink
Catalyst™
Amplify A.T.

Advocare is a multi-level marketing company who actively recruits professional athletes to endorse and use their products. As such, we would expect Advocare to spare no expense assuring drug-test athletes that their products contain no banned substances.

Unfortunately, Advocare ONLY obtained independent certification for ONE of the ten products used by Jessica Hardy (Advocare Muscle Fuel) by a leading supplement testing organization. The Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) requires that each and every batch of Advocare Muscle Fuel is analyzed and certified to be free of more than 80 banned substances including clenbuterol. Failure to do so results in the immediate disqualification of the company from the BSCG program. Advocare advertises its current participation in the BSCG certification program on its website.

AdvoCare® has obtained independent certification of AdvoCare Muscle Fuel™ Pre-Workout Drink through the Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG™). With this certification you can be assured that this revolutionary performance supplement is free of substances including anabolic agents and stimulants banned by major athletic associations. In addition to the power of the AdvoCare Scientific & Medical Advisory Board and the Sports Advisory Council, the BSCG certification brings confidence that Muscle Fuel not only works but it’s safe.

The Banned Substances Control Group uses a World Anti Doping Agency accredited laboratory to analyze dietary supplements for substances banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), National Football League (NFL), and other drug-tested sports leagues.

Is it possible that the Advocare supplements used by Jessica Hardy contained clenbuterol?

In the absence of independent, third-party certification of 9 of the 10 Advocare products used by Hardy, clenbuterol cross-contamination is possible although unlikely. Clenbuterol contamination of dietary supplements is not known to be a problem; also it seems extremely unlikely that a company recruiting so many elite athletes would intentionally spike their supplements with banned substances. So, there is a good chance that Advocare is being unfairly maligned with Jessica Hardy’s misfortunes.

Advocare has strongly denied implications that any of their products ever contained clenbuterol or have caused Jessica Hardy or any other athlete to test positive for a banned substance due to ingesting their supplements.

Contrary to any false and misleading reports, AdvoCare products contain no ingredients banned by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which monitor Olympic and amateur sports, or by the NCAA, NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, or NASCAR. AdvoCare is aware of recent information about AdvoCare and some of the company’s athletic endorsers in regard to our products and remains completely confident that all of our products contain only approved substances.

In the company’s 15-year history, AdvoCare products have never tested positive for banned substances of any kind with any of our athletic endorsers.

The good news is that there should be plenty of evidence (in the form of product lab anaylses) available in the foreseeable future that will fully exonerate either Jessica Hardy or Advocare.

Roche Pharmaceuticals spokesperson, Martina Rupp, strongly denied the addition of any special molecule to Mircera in an email response made within hours of Fahey statements.

“The information that a special molecule has been added to Mircera is wrong,” Rupp said in an e-mail.

Roche explained to CyclingNews.com that the extent of their cooperation with WADA involved providing samples of Mircera and assay reagents.

Roche has provided samples of Mircera and assay reagents to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to help ensure that WADA laboratories will be able to carry out reliable anti-doping testing.

Roche further clarified its relationship with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in an official statement sent to Bloomberg News.

Roche is aware that a leading competitor in the Tour de France is reported to have tested positive for Mircera, Roche’s new erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) approved a year ago in the European Union. Roche has worked in collaboration with the World Anti-Doping Agency since 2004 to assist in their aim of controlling the illegal use of ESAs and specifically Mircera. Roche has provided the information to WADA and to a WADA- accredited laboratory to detect its new ESA. We are pleased that this collaboration has been productive.”

A WADA spokesman subsequently contradicted the WADA president’s statements to ABC Radio suggesting that Fahey’s comments were misconstrued or misinterpreted.

No marker was inserted in the substance,” the WADA spokesman said. “Thanks to the fruitful cooperation of the manufacturer of this substance (Roche) and of WADA-accredited laboratories, which started in 2004, WADA received the molecule well in advance and was able to develop ways to detect it, including through the current EPO detection method.”

Yesterday, I was shocked that a drug company would even consider secretly adding molecules to consumer drug products; it was disturbing to think that a drug company was intentionally failing to disclose ingredients to consumers (and possibly even regulators).

I am relieved to hear that the pharmaceutical giant did not conspire with WADA, an organization known for their anti-steroid and anti-doping witch hunts, to covertly manipulate drug products.

I was surprised that few bloggers had any problem with such a plot. Apparently, legal, health, privacy, and regulatory concerns fall by the wayside when it comes to catching athletes who dope. I read on Trust But Verify that one blogger felt that this was actually the proper way to go after dopers.

This is the right way to catch drug cheats; not witch hunts.

Steroid Nation was disappointed that Fahey’s “good idea” was not implemented by Roche.

So apparently no stealth molecule in the CERA drug allowing detection.  A good idea not implemented.

But it was good to see Rant agree that planting secret molecules would be “problematic.”

Adding special markers to drugs may be problematic, in that it runs the risk of further unintended consequences. All drugs have side effects. Any drug maker worth their salt would want to minimize the possibilities of those side effects. Adding extra stuff into the drug, merely for the convenience of the anti-doping agencies could, conceivably, expose legitimate users of the medication to extra risks. Not a good business model, especially in our litigious age.

The WADA and Roche dance today was very interesting. John Fahey’s comments about the planted molecule are baffling in retrospect. Why would he pull something out of his ass that was so misleading and (allegedly) false? What if there really are secret trojan molecules in our drugs? What is Fahey accidentally let the cat out of the bag?! What is today’s events were an organized coverup?

No – it couldn’t be true! I am not in the habit of believing statements from WADA (especially when they talk about the foolproofness, accuracy and fairness of their tests); so why should I start believing Fahey today?

It seems that WADA is no longer interested in developing anti-doping tests that actually detect performance enhancing drugs (PEDs); this is understandable since serious flaws in their anti-doping tests are revealed again and again. Instead, WADA apparently believes the future of anti-doping efforts lies in anti-doping agencies cooperation with pharmaceutical companies to secretly add “traceable molecules” and “trojan molecules” (“Ricco caught by secret doping molecule: WADA chief,” July 23).

In the development of that particular substance, close cooperation occurred between WADA and the pharmaceutical company Roche Pharmaceuticals so that there was a molecule placed in the substance well in advance that was always going to be able to be detected once a test was taken,” Mr Fahey said.

Wow. I wonder what is more deplorable – athletes using performance enhancing drugs OR multi-national pharmaceutical companies secretly adding traceable molecules to consumer products and intentionally hiding this ingredient by failing to disclose it on the label?

Mr Fahey said such cooperation with drug companies was the way forward in fighting drug cheats.

“There’s more and more of this occurring,” he said.

“The more cooperation the scientists can have with the drug companies in the detection of performance-enhancing drugs the greater the likelihood is they will be detected when tests are undertaken.”

I can not imagine regulatory agencies such as the FDA looking favorably upon pharmaceutical products that have undisclosed, secret ingredients which are not essential to the action of the drug. After all, the traceable molecules have absolutely no benefit to the patient.

Certainly, this will upset quite a few people; the fact that Roche Pharmaceuticals is committing resources to non-therapeutic anti-doping efforts is, at the very least, bad public relations coming only a fews weeks after abandoning HIV/AIDS research.

The privacy, legal and regulatory obstacles to WADA’s latest approach to doping detection seems to make it a non-starter. FAIL!

Even if some pharmaceutical companies conspire with WADA in their anti-doping efforts, there are probably hundreds of pharmaceutical companies around the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, that would likely resist the extra expense of adding “traceable” anti-doping molecules to their products. The innumerous pharmaceutical companies have already given WADA problems with all the undetectable biogeneric and biosimilar EPO variants commercially available to athletes.

I am always willing to give athletes the benefit of a doubt especially given the lack of fair and reliable doping protocols administered under WADA. But, the statements Vroemen offers in his defense are weak, misleading and wrong.

Simon Vroemen claims that Dianabol would be “counterproductive” for a middle distance runner because it primarily increases muscle mass without a significant increase in strength; furthermore, Vroeman claims Dianabol remains detectable in doping tests for up to nine months after ingested making it unsuitable for any athlete competing in a drug tested competition (“A small trace with large consequences?,” July 11).

The compound, named metandienone, increases muscle weight and volume (not so much strenth) and is therefore popular in the body building scene. As a steeple chase runner, one would probably only be disadvantaged by its consequences. It appears to be traceable up to 9 months in your urine and is hence unlikely to be used consciously by sportsmen as a performance-enhancing substance.

These statements are innacurate. Dianabol can lead to significant increases in strength; anabolic steroids are particularly beneficial for endurance athletes (as seen in the number of positive steroid tests for middle distance runners and cyclists) since heavy endurance training tends to significantly suppress endogenous testosterone production. Anabolic steroids do not automatically transform an athlete’s physique into that of a bodybuilder; body size while on steroids is more heavily dependent on variables such as caloric intake versus expenditure and training specificity.

Vroemen also claims that Dianabol is detectable for up to nine months after ingestion. This is false. The metabolites are practically undetectable after 1-2 weeks.

A three-member arbitration panel ruled last December the testing of her sample, given at a meet in Belgium, was not done in accordance with WADA rules that require tests be run by two different technicians.

That broke USADA’s perfect record in front of arbitration panels, which was 35-0 according to the best available statistics.

To the question of Jenkins’ appearing to have won on a technicality, Valparaiso Sports Law Clinic director Michael Straubel had said, “[The arbitrators] set aside the test results because they were not based on reliable lab results.”

She was represented by the Valpo Sports Law Clinic with free legal assistance. The clinic is a pro bono service of Valparaiso University School of Law based on financial need. The Valpo Sports Clinic was founded in 2005; the clinic will have an on-site service for athletes at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

Professor Michael Straubel, the Director of the Valpo Sports Law Clinic, has previously commented on the unfairness and inconsistency of anti-doping efforts in the context of the Floyd Landis case (“Sports Law Clinic director comments on Landis case,” May 24, 2007).

“It is important to eliminate cheating in sports and enforce anti-doping rules consistently and fairly, but the USADA v. Landis hearing is a rare public airing of the many tensions and growing pains that haunt the doping control process,” said Professor Straubel. “Those tensions include a bureaucracy that needs to prove itself vs. an accused athlete’s need for information to defend himself. The system is designed to be quick vs. the need to be thorough in order to be fair. It is a system based on breach of contract dispute procedures vs. claims and charges that are criminal in their seriousness.”

Professor Straubel added, “However, at the heart of the Landis case are questions about the reliability of a still developing science and anti-doping enforcement using that science. Floyd Landis and his attorneys are challenging a system which presumes the science is reliable and testing is properly done, but which then limits the information available to athletes about that science and testing. This challenge has clearly shown how difficult it is to put the testers to their proofs. Perhaps the larger result of the Landis case will be a system that is more self correcting and reliable.”