Suchergebnisse

Sports nutrition supplements have previously been reported to contain undeclared doping substances. The use of such supplements can lead to general health risks and may give rise to unintentional doping violations in elite sports. To assess the prevalence of doping substances in a range of high-risk sports nutrition supplements available from Dutch web shops. A total of 66 sports nutrition supplements - identified as potentially high-risk products claiming to modulate hormone regulation, stimulate muscle mass gain, increase fat loss, and/or boost energy - were selected from 21 different brands and purchased from 17 web shops. All products were analyzed for doping substances by the UK life sciences testing company LGC, formerly known as the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, using an extended version of their ISO17025 accredited nutritional supplement screen. A total of 25 out of the 66 products (38%) contained undeclared doping substances, which included high levels of the stimulants oxilofrine, β-methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) and N,β-dimethylphenethylamine (NBDMPEA), the stimulant 4-methylhexan-2-amine (methylhexaneamine, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, DMAA), the anabolic steroids boldione (1,4-androstadiene-3,17-dione) and 5-androstene-3β,17α-diol (17α-AED), the beta-2 agonist higenamine and the beta-blocker bisoprolol. Based upon the recommended dose and the potential variability of analyte concentration, the ingestion of some products identified within this study could pose a significant risk of unintentional doping violations. In addition to inadvertent doping risks, the prescribed use of 3 products (4.5%) could likely impose general health risks.

Sports nutrition supplements have previously been reported to contain undeclared doping substances. The use of such supplements can lead to general health risks and may give rise to unintentional doping violations in elite sports. To assess the prevalence of doping substances in a range of high-risk sports nutrition supplements available from Dutch web shops. A total of 66 sports nutrition supplements - identified as potentially high-risk products claiming to modulate hormone regulation, stimulate muscle mass gain, increase fat loss, and/or boost energy - were selected from 21 different brands and purchased from 17 web shops. All products were analyzed for doping substances by the UK life sciences testing company LGC, formerly known as the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, using an extended version of their ISO17025 accredited nutritional supplement screen. A total of 25 out of the 66 products (38%) contained undeclared doping substances, which included high levels of the stimulants oxilofrine, β-methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) and N,β-dimethylphenethylamine (NBDMPEA), the stimulant 4-methylhexan-2-amine (methylhexaneamine, 1,3-dimethylamylamine, DMAA), the anabolic steroids boldione (1,4-androstadiene-3,17-dione) and 5-androstene-3β,17α-diol (17α-AED), the beta-2 agonist higenamine and the beta-blocker bisoprolol. Based upon the recommended dose and the potential variability of analyte concentration, the ingestion of some products identified within this study could pose a significant risk of unintentional doping violations. In addition to inadvertent doping risks, the prescribed use of 3 products (4.5%) could likely impose general health risks.

WADA is a hybrid public–private agency that leads the global fight against doping. This chapter explores why and how this agency developed into an institution that receives support from sports organizations and governments worldwide. Despite initial scepticism about its ability to overcome the ineffectiveness of anti-doping policies prior to its foundation in 1999, WADA quickly grew into a broadly trusted and well-respected organization. It successfully developed a globally harmonized anti-doping system that reinforced the credibility of international sports competitions and the legitimacy of elite sport policies. From its inception, it had a distinct identity as a neutral, impartial and objective standard setter and referee agent in a morally challenging organizational field. Nonetheless, being relatively young, WADA remains a vulnerable institution. It must continuously take an independent position with regard to partial interests of sporting and public authorities that are responsible for WADA's funding and governance. This requires institutional leadership that the organization cannot always offer, as recent doping affairs show.

WADA is a hybrid public–private agency that leads the global fight against doping. This chapter explores why and how this agency developed into an institution that receives support from sports organizations and governments worldwide. Despite initial scepticism about its ability to overcome the ineffectiveness of anti-doping policies prior to its foundation in 1999, WADA quickly grew into a broadly trusted and well-respected organization. It successfully developed a globally harmonized anti-doping system that reinforced the credibility of international sports competitions and the legitimacy of elite sport policies. From its inception, it had a distinct identity as a neutral, impartial and objective standard setter and referee agent in a morally challenging organizational field. Nonetheless, being relatively young, WADA remains a vulnerable institution. It must continuously take an independent position with regard to partial interests of sporting and public authorities that are responsible for WADA's funding and governance. This requires institutional leadership that the organization cannot always offer, as recent doping affairs show.

The prevalence of doping in competitive sport, and the methods for assessing prevalence, remain poorly understood. This reduces the ability of researchers, governments, and sporting organizations to determine the extent of doping behavior and the impacts of anti-doping strategies. The primary aim of this subject-wide systematic review was to collate and synthesize evidence on doping prevalence from published scientific papers. Secondary aims involved reviewing the reporting accuracy and data quality as evidence for doping behavior to (1) develop quality and bias assessment criteria to facilitate future systematic reviews; and (2) establish recommendations for reporting future research on doping behavior in competitive sports to facilitate better meta-analyses of doping behavior. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify relevant studies. Articles were included if they contained information on doping prevalence of any kind in competitive sport, regardless of the methodology and without time limit. Through an iterative process, we simultaneously developed a set of assessment criteria; and used these to assess the studies for data quality on doping prevalence, potential bias and reporting. One-hundred and five studies, published between 1975 and 2019,were included. Doping prevalence rates in competitive sport ranged from 0 to 73% for doping behavior with most falling under 5%. To determine prevalence, 89 studies used self-reported survey data (SRP) and 17 used sample analysis data (SAP) to produce evidence for doping prevalence (one study used both SRP and SAP). In total, studies reporting athletes totaled 102,515 participants, (72.8% men and 27.2% women). Studies surveyed athletes in 35 countries with 26 involving athletes in the United States, while 12 studies examined an international population. Studies also surveyed athletes from most international sport federations and major professional sports and examined international, national, and sub-elite level athletes, including youth, masters, amateur, club, and university level athletes. However, inconsistencies in data reporting prevented meta-analysis for sport, gender, region, or competition level. Qualitative syntheses were possible and provided for study type, gender, and geographical region. The quality assessment of prevalence evidence in the studies identified 20 as "High", 60 as "Moderate", and 25 as "Low." Of the 89 studies using SRP, 17 rated as "High", 52 rated as "Moderate", and 20 rated as "Low." Of the 17 studies using SAP, 3 rated as "High", 9 rated as "Moderate", and 5 rated as "Low." Examining ratings by year suggests that both the quality and quantity of the evidence for doping prevalence in published studies are increasing. Current knowledge about doping prevalence in competitive sport relies upon weak and disparate evidence. To address this, we offer a comprehensive set of assessment criteria for studies examining doping behavior data as evidence for doping prevalence. To facilitate future evidence syntheses and meta-analyses, we also put forward "best practice" recommendations and reporting guidelines that will improve evidence quality.