DRUG TESTING RULES FOR NARCOTIC PAINKILLERS IN THE NFL, MLB, NCAA AND OLYMPIC SPORT

The world is focused once again on the NFL, after a DEA investigation into the possible illegal use of prescription painkillers in the sport, as first reported Sunday by Sally Jenkins and Rick Maese of the Washington Post.

The issue centers on how such drugs are used and dispensed within pro football. According to DEA regulations, controlled substances like narcotic painkillers, known as analgesics in the medical field, can only be monitored and prescribed by licensed medical personnel and only within states where the license applies.

Controlling the use and abuse of analgesics is not an isolated issue faced by the NFL. The problem is prevalent across sport and society. Alarmingly, the CDC reported deaths from prescription drug overdose had risen steadily through 2008 reaching the same level as deaths from vehicle accidents. Thankfully, the CDC reports this trend has slowed in recent years, but the issue remains present and acute.

To understand the issue better one needs to know what drugs we are talking about. Most of the concern is centered on narcotic opioid analgesics, substances that can be dangerous and addictive. These include morphine, heroin, codeine and their synthetic derivatives and analogs. Fentanyl, tramadol, meperidine (demerol), hydrocodone (vicodin), oxycodone are common examples of drugs in this category. Narcotic analgesics are to be distinguished from other drugs used to treat pain like muscle relaxers or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

While controlled substance laws dictate how narcotic analgesics are managed in society, drug-testing programs in sport dictate how these drugs are treated within the sport in question.  We look deeper into the drug-testing policies and banned substance lists in sport to see how these drugs are governed and managed.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List governs international Olympic sport and is often used as a model by other sporting groups when considering what to ban. Some narcotic analgesics are on the WADA Prohibited List in the S7. Narcotics category, but not all the common ones mentioned above would be included.  The language for narcotics is shown below.

S7. NARCOTICS

The following are prohibited: Buprenorphine, dextromoramide, diamorphine (heroin), fentanyl and its derivatives, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, pentazocine, pethidine.

The language does not include the ‘similar chemical structure or similar biological effect’ language or the ‘including but not limited to’ language used in other categories to cover additional substances not listed. In the case of narcotics, the only substances not listed that are covered are fentanyl and its derivates. Codeine and derivatives like hydrocodone and tramadol are not covered by the WADA language. WADA prohibits the use of narcotics in-competition, but these agents are not tested for out of competition.

Interestingly, the language included on the WADA Prohibited List is different than that used by Olympic sport prior to WADA. In 2000, Olympic sport was still governed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the rules in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code. At the time, the narcotics section included ‘and related substances’ but a specific list of narcotic analgesics was permitted, as shown below.

  1. NARCOTICS

Prohibited Substances in class (B) include the following examples: buprenorphine, dextromoramide, diamorphine (heroin), methadone, morphine, pentazocine, pethidine, … and related substances

NOTE: codeine, dextromethorphan, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, diphenoxylate, ethylmorphine, pholcodine, propoxyphene and tramadol are permitted.

The issue is different when one evaluates how narcotic analgesics are treated in professional sport leagues and college. We review the NFL, MLB and NCAA policies here. A review of how other sport groups might deal with these drugs is more difficult as drug-testing policy language is not always publicly available.

The NFL covers narcotic analgesics under its Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse. The policy says that, “Players shall be tested only for the following substances.” Narcotic analgesics are covered as follows: “Opiates (total morphine and codeine) ≥ 300 ng/mL, Opioids (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) ≥ 300 ng/mL.” The language is somewhat vague but it should broadly cover narcotic analgesics depending a bit on how the testing provider interprets the listing of opioids (are only hydrocodone and oxycodone included or all opioids?). Looking at how the testing policy is applied in the NFL, one discovers that testing for drugs of abuse only occurs Pre Season, Pre-Employment, during an Intervention Program or by Agreement. During the season, when narcotic analgesics would be expected to be used, the drugs are not typically included in the drug-testing parameters.

In the MLB, narcotic analgesics are covered under Drugs of Abuse in Major League Baseball’s Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program. The MLB language describing the compounds covered is broader and more inclusive than WADA’s or the NFL’s and includes: “Opiates (e.g., Oxycodone, Heroin, Codeine, and Morphine),” “…and their analogs,” and “any and all drugs or substances included on Schedules I and II of the Code of Federal Regulations’ Schedule of Controlled Substances.” However, the application of the testing in the MLB is more restrictive as testing is only done for drugs of abuse in the case of reasonable cause or if a player is in a treatment program. No other testing for drugs of abuse is allowed.

In college sport narcotic analgesics are covered still differently in the NCAA Drug Testing Program. The 2014-2015 NCAA Banned Drugs list includes one opiate, heroin, under Street Drugs. The entire list is governed by language stating, “any substance that is chemically related to the class, even if it is not listed as an example, is also banned!” In the case of narcotic analgesics it is unclear if this would be interpreted narrowly to include only drugs chemically related to heroin or whether it would be interpreted more broadly to include opiates or opioids. This language leaves it vague as to the analgesics that are or are not approved. Use of banned substances can be allowed by medical exception, but “no medical exception review is available for substances in the class street drugs.” As for application, testing for street drugs, and any narcotic analgesics interpreted to be included, can occur year round for selected athletes.

It is fascinating to review the treatment of narcotic analgesics and see the lack of consistency between sport drug-testing programs as to the substances that are banned and the application of the testing. This is an example of the challenges faced when considering what to ban and how.

Perhaps the realization that significant differences exist in the treatment of narcotics will prompt a larger review of other categories of banned substances and the differences that exist across sport in the management of performance-enhancing drugs in general. After more than three decades of modern drug testing, we should be able to achieve greater consistency and clarity in drug-testing policy and the protections afforded therein to the sports and the athletes represented.

Amazon.com: An unfettered marketplace for banned and illegal drugs masquerading as dietary supplements

Banned and illegal drugs, by definition, should be hard to get, shouldn’t they? Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite; just explore Amazon.com, one of the largest marketplaces for banned or illegal drugs masquerading as dietary supplements.

Need steroids?  There are plenty of options.  New stimulant compounds that the FDA and other international authorities consider illegal and have proven harmful; no problem those are in stock.  What about new drugs that have yet to be approved for human consumption?  Sure you can get those too.  We explore a few startling examples of the illegal and potentially dangerous compounds available today at Amazon.com.

Steroids have been a concern for consumers and athletes for decades.  Pharmaceutical steroid development reached a pinnacle in the 1960’s with a handful of steroids like stanozolol and nandrolone approved for human use, after being evaluated for safety and toxicity. 

Since then a proliferation of prohormones, designer steroids or steroids in disguise,Superdrol appeared in the dietary supplement marketplace and in positive drug test results in sport.  Unlike approved steroids, the safety, toxicity and approved dose of such compounds are unknown, and some, particularly 17-alpha-methylated steroids like Superdrol, have proven to be toxic and dangerous.  The drug caused liver failure and a positive drug test for an NCAA athlete Jareem Gunter in 2005.

With the BALCO scandal in 2003, that unearthed the doping escapades of Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery and Barry Bonds, came attention.  Steroids like ‘THG’ and ‘Madol’ were at its heart.  President George W. Bush focused on steroids in his 2004 State of the Union Address.  Later that year, Bush signed the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, which was enhanced with the passing of the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2012.

The FDA took prominent action in a highly publicized raid of Bodybuilding.com in November 2009.  In one of the largest regulatory actions to date, the FDA found 65 illegal steroid products for sale that contained five steroid compounds, “Superdrol,” “Madol,” “Tren,” “Androstenedione,” and/or “Turinabol.”  In 2012, as a result of this case, a fine of $7 million dollars was levied against Bodybuilding.com.

Unfortunately, Amazon did not heed the president’s 2004 State-of-the-Union message, nor the legal regulations in the Anabolic Steroid Control Acts, nor the prominent FDA enforcement action against Bodybuilding.com.

Amazingly, in January 2011 we noted in a blog post that products the FDA had raided Bodybuilding.com for in 2009 were still available at Amazon.com, namely CEL M-MDrolDrol, which contained ‘Superdrol’ (Superdrol, also known as methasterone, has the scientific name 2α, 17α-dimethyl-5α-androstane-3-one-17β-ol).  The Washington Post reported the story on January 19, 2011, numerous other news outlets followed with their own coverage.  We at The Catlin Consortium had hoped that by publicizing the issue Amazon would be put on notice allowing the company to address the issue responsibly.

That has not happened.  Instead, CEL M-Drol remained available at Amazon.com on September 10, 2013.  It has since mysteriously disappeared from the site after we
included the link in a supplement industry presentation in late September.  ‘Superdrol’, however, continues to appear in another product called M-Stane, which lists the compound on the label under the name 2a-17a-dimethyl-5a-androst-3-one-17b-ol.

MStaneTranadrol Image Purus Labs Nasty Mass

M-Stane is only the tip of the iceberg.  As of October 20, Amazon.com still had two products available that were named on the FDA raid list in 2009; Kilo Sports Trenadrol and Purus Labs Nasty Mass.   A search for ‘prohormones’ on Amazon.com returned 125 products on October 20.  Many likely contain steroids or related substances. 

But the concern doesn’t stop with steroids.  Dangerous new stimulants like methlyhexaneamine and methamphetamine analogs, appearing as pre-workout supplements, remain available at Amazon.com.  Of particular concern is the original version of Jack3D from USP Labs and Craze from Driven Sports.

Jack3dJack3D grew to be one of the most popular pre-workout supplements on the market over the last several years.  The original version contained the now infamous stimulant methylhexaneamine, otherwise known in the industry as DMAA, geranamine, geranium oil extract and other names.  Patrick Arnold, the BALCO chemist, filed a patent for the compound under the name geranamine and included it in his own pre-workout product.

The drug has become a huge concern for athletes.  Astonishingly, more than 758 positive drug tests for methylhexaneamine have been reported by World-Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) labs since 2008, when the first positive was called.  The drug was not banned in 2008.  It was added to the WADA Prohibited List in 2009.  In 2012 alone there were 320 positive test results representing 7.1% of the 4,500 total WADA findings that year, placing behind only testosterone (T/E, 1,202 findings) and marijuana (398 findings). 

Some manufacturers defended methylhexaneamine, claiming it was geranium oil extract and thus of natural origin and present in the food supply prior to 1994, which would make it legal according to the definition of an ingredient in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.  However, the natural origin of the DMAA used in supplements proved unfounded and the FDA has challenged its legality and safety for several years and considers the synthetic compound to be an illegal ingredient

Of primary concern is the potential for the compound to cause serious harm, and even death.  Sadly, Jack3D was implicated in the death of Claire Squires, a runner in the 2012 London marathon.

Jack3d

USP Labs has since reformulated the product and Jack3D Advanced Formularemoved DMAA  as have other manufacturers.  Despite the significant attention and health risks, the original version of Jack3D continues to be available at Amazon.com.  The reformulated Advanced Formula Jack3D is also available, marketed differently, suggesting that the distinction between the two products is known.  Neither includes ingredient information on the site.

CrazeCraze is one of the second generation pre-workout products that began to proliferate when methylhexaneamine was addressed by authorities.  It was Bodybuilding.com’s New Supplement of the Year in 2012.  The Craze label says it contains Dendrobex™, a trademarked extract of dendrobium, an orchid.  The label suggests that several suspicious compounds are components of Dendrobex™: N,N-Diethyl-B-Phenylethylamine and N,N-Dimethyl-B-Phenylethylamine, a CAS registered compound that is .004 mass units away from methamphetamine.  Eventually, the compound present in Craze was shown to be a methamphetamine analog, N,α-diethylphenylethylamine, with no known natural presence.

USA Today, in its exhaustive reporting on Craze and its manufacturer Driven Sports, elicited a significant response from retailers in the dietary supplement industry.  Giants like Wal-Mart, eBay, and Bodybuilding.com have recently pulled the product, but not Amazon.com. As of October 20, Craze remained available from 8 Amazon sellers.

We conclude with perhaps the most amazing example of all, involving a new category of developing drugs called Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators, or SARMs for short.  SARMs are drugs that act like steroids by activating androgen receptors in the body.  SARMs are a relatively new category of drugs and thus many compounds are still in development and clinical trials where toxicity and safety are being evaluated.  One such drug is Ostarine, being developed for muscle wasting disease associated with cancer by a company called GT-X, under the name Enobosarm, GTx-024 and MK-2866

No need to wait for approval, it appears Ostarine is already for sale in dietary supplementsOstamax label - MK2866 at Amazon.com, IronMagLabs OstaRx and Cutting Edge Labs OstaMax are names that suggest the new SARM is an ingredient.  The label for OstaMax, included on Amazon.com, is astounding, stating, “FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY, NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION”, and yet there is a serving suggestion of one capsule daily!  The scientific name of Ostarine is on the label as is the MK-2866 naming convention used by GT-X.  Positive drug tests have already been seen with a female cyclist testing positive for Ostarine in June, and WADA reporting five SARMs as a whole in 2012.

The Amazon mission statement is “to be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers can find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”  Steroids, stimulants, drugs not approved for human consumption, and other potentially dangerous drugs, we hope, were not the intended aim of that mission.  Providing a marketplace for illegal compounds masquerading as dietary supplements in the face of international attention, consumer health concerns, and serious adverse events seems contrary to the customer-centric focus.  At the very least it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Global marketplaces like Amazon.com help set preferences across a variety of products, including dietary supplements.  We hope that Amazon becomes a real part of the solution by making the choice to eliminate these dangerous products instead of continuing to perpetuate their distribution.

#####

 

Athletes, Drug Testing, and Deer Antler – The Real Story

The sporting media is up in antlers with reports that allege Ray Lewis used a deer antler spray in his injury comeback.  The questions as to whether deer antler is banned and whether its use could lead to a doping violation are indeed complex.  We felt it was time to peel back the velvet to answer those questions and review the facts on deer antler.

Deer antler has a long history of use in Chinese medicine and is used ‘to decrease fatigue and improve sleep and appetite. In animal tests, deer antler has been shown to increase oxygen uptake in the brain, liver and kidneys, and increase red and white blood cell production.’  Traditionally it is available in the form of antler slices, powders, and extracts.  In its natural form, it is likely a legal dietary ingredient under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA); it has been sold at herbologists and various natural product stores for some time.

Deer antler has gained popularity as a dietary supplement over the last few years.  Some manufacturers, like LuRong Living Essential, grind the actual antler into powder form and encapsulate it in ingestible capsules.  (For the record, our company Banned Substances Control Group has certified LuRong Living Essential to be free of methyltestosterone [see below] and other contaminants.)

Other manufacturers sell the deer antler as a concentrated extract in a spray form.  The sprays, often with names like IGF-1+, are marketed as anti-aging and/or performance-enhancing agents and are offered with different dosages of IGF-1.  The sprays carry claims that the IGF-1 is delivered to the body through liposomal absorption, meaning it would be absorbed through membranes, such as those in the mouth, as opposed to having to enter the body through digestion.

Whether the spray forms are legal under U.S. law is unclear.  If deer antler is chemically altered to standardize the amount of IGF-1 present or to make it absorbable, then the spray form of deer antler is likely illegal under DSHEA.  However, we will let the FDA sort that out; we are here to examine issues related to drugs in sport.

In the realm ofSWATS spray pic sport, the hoopla started with a spray form of deer antler called The Ultimate Spray, marketed by Sports with Alternative to Steroids (SWATS), that was involved in David Vobora’s NFL positive drug test for the steroid methyltestosterone in 2009.  During the course of the civil action following Vobora’s suspension, Vobora had the spray he used tested and it was found to be contaminated with methyltestosterone.  Vobora won a $5.4 million ruling as a result.

As the article notes, we tested the spray at our nonprofit/NGO Anti-Doping Research for The Post Game in 2011 and did not find methyltestosterone.  This highlights an important point: that one batch of a product can be contaminated and another batch clean, something that athletes need to consider.

All this attention prompted MLB and NFL to issue warnings to players regarding the use of deer antler.  Interestingly, the MLB warning did not focus on the IGF-1 issue but rather on the issue of methyltestosterone contamination.  The NFL warning meanwhile concentrated more on the IGF-1 issue and questioned the appropriateness of its players or coaches representing such a product.

Confusion has swirled ever since culminating in Super Bowl fashion with allegations that Ray Lewis used the very same SWATS spray in his triceps recovery.  ESPN ticker reports are now alleging that the Alabama football team may have used the spray as well.

Whether deer antler is banned in sport and whether its use would be considered a doping violation comes down to whether it is ingested or absorbed and whether it has been certified to be free of potential contaminants like methyltestosterone.

Is deer antler a banned substance?

No, deer antler is not listed as a banned substance today in any sport.  It is true that deer antler naturally contains IGF-1, a substance banned in sport.  However, so do animal food products like red meat, eggs or milk and other common dietary supplement ingredients like colostrum.  Many food products contain IGF-1 or other growth factors that are banned in sport yet consuming them does not constitute or lead to doping violations.  The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) supports this notion but does not exactly provide clarity with their confusing note on colostrum: “Colostrum is not prohibited per se, however it contains certain quantities of IGF-1 and other growth factors which are prohibited and can influence the outcome of anti-doping tests. Therefore WADA does not recommend the ingestion of this product.”

Would using deer antler be considered use of a banned substance in sport?

In our opinion, the answer comes down to the form used.  Scientific publications agree that when IGF-1 is ingested in the form of colostrum it is not absorbed by the body and would ‘not elicit positive results on drug tests.’  Assuming the same is true of the IGF-1 in deer antler or other food products, ingesting the IGF-1 is unlikely to be construed as a violation of drug testing regulations since no banned substance is absorbed by the body.  Therefore, ingestible deer antler products should be acceptable for athletes to use under current rules.  Conversely, using a spray form of deer antler concentrated to contain certain amounts of IGF-1 that is delivered through liposomal absorption would likely constitute a doping violation, because if the product works as claimed the banned substance IGF-1 would be absorbed by the body.

Is IGF-1 detectable in the current sport drug testing system?

As the abstract of a recent publication states: “Currently, there is no test for the detection of IGF-1 introduced worldwide”.  This is not to say that the anti-doping community can not detect it as there are numerous publications that demonstrate the ability to do so.  IGF-1 is used as an important marker in the Sonksen test for human growth hormone that has been slowly gaining traction in the WADA community.  That said, we are not aware of a complete detection method for IGF-1 in use in sport drug testing today that can unequivocally determine if exogenous, or foreign, IGF-1 has entered the body.  So, if the deer antler sprays work as intended and IGF-1 is actually absorbed by the body, that may be a violation of drug testing policies but we do not believe it would result in a positive drug test in the current system.  Unfortunately, IGF-1 in general remains a major challenge for anti-doping authorities and is a huge potential loophole in the current doping control system.

Is there a way for athletes to protect themselves against the potential for methyltestosterone or other contamination to occur in deer antler products?

As with all dietary supplements, we would recommend that athletes only use batches or lots of products that have been certified by a reputable independent testing body to be free of banned substances.  We operate a program called BSCG Certified Drug Free® that offers testing services to manufacturers, teams and athletes to ensure that products are safe and free of banned and dangerous substances.

It is our view that if you are an athlete using a spray form of deer antler be aware that you are likely in violation of drug-testing rules even though the IGF-1 at issue may not be detectable currently.  If you want to use deer antler without violating drug-testing policies, you should be careful to use only an ingestible product that has been tested for potential contaminants like methyltestosterone.

This is a perfect example of the extremely complex issues we all face when considering the connections between dietary supplements and banned substances in sport.  We feel it is the responsibility of the leagues, the players associations, the anti-doping authorities, the FDA, supplement industry representatives, and scientific organizations like ours to come together to address the broader issues in some fashion.  As deer antler does not wander the forests alone, we owe it to the athletes to provide a concrete yes or no as to whether something is prohibited, as their careers and reputations are at stake.  We have the ability and the knowledge; we just need to make the effort.

#####

The Monetary Gap – One Reason for the Lance Armstrong Affair

LA photo from TVYesterday much of the world had to watch Oprah to see Lance Armstrong confess his doping for the first time.  Even Lance agrees that should have happened long ago. 

One of the most troubling elements of all of this is that drug testing began in the Olympics in 1968 more than 44 years ago and yet the system is still unable to distinguish who is a clean athlete.  Every decade we are faced with a groundbreaking scandal, and multiple times a year we are faced with an ordinary scandal resulting from doping in sport.  Just last week we finished a baseball hall of fame vote where a whole generation of players got snubbed largely because of doping, and yet it seemed ordinary. 

Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens… the list is long and spans all sports and generations when it comes to sport heroes and champions who have fallen, some even sacrificing their lives like Tommy Simpson, from using performance-enhancing drugs.  The question facing us all is why and what should we do about it, in much the same way we ask why and what to do about gun violence after witnessing the Newtown disaster. 

Now some may say hold on, you are way out of line.  There is no way to compare innocent children dying in a horrifying massacre to the performance-enhancing drug problem.  While we would agree with that in large part, we also point out that children are tragically affected by performance-enhancing drugs, figuring they have to use them to compete.  Sadly, some of our children even sacrifice their lives in pursuit of steroids and other drugs.  Just ask the Hooton’s, or the Garibaldi’s, or the Marrero’s or the other parents that have paid the ultimate price in losing a child to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. 

We consider the annual budget of the World Anti-Doping Agency at ~$28 million annually and the United States Anti-Doping Agency at $14 million.  We assume UK Sport and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority are equivalent to USADA for another $28 million.  The NFL spent $10 million in 2011.  We will put MLB at $10 million as well although their updated new program likely will come with additional cost.  The sport of cycling was estimated to spend $4.7 million and tennis (ITF) $1.3 million per year in 2011 for another $6 million.  If we assume there are 150 other countries and sporting bodies spending an average of $1-2 million annually on anti-doping, that adds another $150-300 million.  All said we estimate the total annual anti-doping budget worldwide to be $246-396 million, which compares to the budget of a small pharmaceutical company – and our estimate is probably on the high side. 

At the same time, you consider that Lance Armstrong made an estimated $17.5 million in endorsements alone in 2005.  Alex Rodriguez, another previous doper, makes $29 million per year in salary alone.  Annual budgets for professional cycling teams range from several million up to $25 million for a team like Sky.  The median team payroll in Major League Baseball is around $90 million while the total payroll for the league is a staggering $2.94 billion.  The total payroll in the NFL is even higher at almost $3.4 billion.  Finally consider the $3.2 billion in endorsement contracts for Nike athletes alone over the next 5 years.  All told, professional and Olympic athletes and teams have easily more than $10 billion in annual resources. 

When Lance Armstrong’s endorsements plus A-Rod’s salary alone totals more than $46.5 million, eclipsing the WADA and USADA annual budgets by $4.5 million.  When the drug-testing programs for MLB and NFL represent 0.3% of annual player salaries.  When the estimated annual amount spent worldwide on anti-doping testing, legal matters and research at ~$246-396 million represents 2-4% of the more than $10 billion in resources available to athletes perhaps we begin to see the scope of the problem.  Those who want to dope can afford to beat the system; at present the monetary gap is simply too great for the system to overcome. 

Now we consider the response.  There have already been countless hours of media content alone dedicated to Lance Armstrong.  We tried to estimate the dollars spent and considered 500 media outlets spending an average of $10,000 each on the coverage.  That would be $5 million alone spent covering the issue worldwide, by the end of this whole affair it is likely to be 10 or 50 times that amount, and our estimate is likely conservative. 

Those of us in the anti-doping community don’t expect $6 billion to be dropped off anytime soon, but it would be nice to see the resources available to anti-doping double or triple at least.  If we can’t afford to give anti-doping a fighting chance by providing the movement with the financial resources needed to effectuate change, then we are part of the problem and we can settle in for a continuing parade of scandals. 

It is up to sport and those that care about it to ensure adequate resources are available to establish and maintain a reality of clean competition.  The athletes, sport, and the next generations of athletes and sports fans deserve a drug testing system that can deliver to the world clean sporting champions, ones we can believe in and trust.  With an outmatched system that can’t expose dirty athletes, even athletes who want to compete clean feel they have to dope to win, and we simply can’t accept that reality.  The risks are too great to sport and the individuals who dedicate their lives to it. 

But it is not just about the money, it is about finding real solutions that can improve the drug-testing system and approach in place today, with or without more resources.  Stay tuned as our dinner conversations have been generating some interesting ideas….

#####

Catlins launch new Support Clean Sport campaign

SUPPORT CLEAN SPORT

HOSTS NATIONAL LAUNCH PARTY

(Los Angeles) – Support Clean Sport, a new athlete-driven grassroots campaign dedicated to fostering clean sport, is hosting its national launch party on Sunday, May 22 from 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. at the downtown City Park in Woodstock, Georgia.  Sponsored by Banned Substances Control Group and presented by Star 94.1FM and host DJ Crazy Mike, the all-day event will feature educational seminars on training, diet, and supplements, a bench-press contest presented by Hickory Flat GNC, high-intensity functional fitness exercises by The Garage and CrossFit, speed and agility measurements by XCelerate Sports Development, and physiological testing by Life University Sport Health Science.

“We’re very excited about bringing together athletes, coaches, parents, sports fans, fitness enthusiasts and health experts to not only help foster clean sport, but to embrace and celebrate it,” says Oliver Catlin, co-founder and Vice President of Anti-Doping Research and Executive Director of Support Clean Sport.  “Over the years, we’ve heard from many athletes, sponsors and others that they would like to do something positive to help promote integrity in athletic competition.  Support Clean Sport provides that opportunity to any person or company that shares our passion.”

Support Clean Sport combines education and outreach by top experts with commitments from athletes to stay clean and active participation of coaches, parents, alumni and sport enthusiasts.  The SCS Team of Professionals provides information on banned substance regulations so athletes can stay clean, and it shares tips on diet, training, supplementation and other topics that allow athletes to reach their highest potential and win clean.  Support Clean Sport also provides people an opportunity to Join SCS, our social networking community for those passionate about clean sport.

“I think many athletes and fans long for a time when you know the person on the podium deserves to be there, and the victory can be celebrated without a hint of suspicion,” says Don Catlin, M.D., co-founder and President of Anti-Doping Research & Support Clean Sport and founder and former longtime director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab.  “Athletes who have invested so much time and effort into their training deserve that, as do sports fans.  Ultimately, we believe that working together, it’s possible to get there.”

Among the educational speakers at the SCS national launch party on Sunday in Woodstock will be drug-testing experts, dietary supplement experts and doctors.  Up-and-coming R&B artist Candy Nicole will be singing the national anthem and “Should Have Been Me.”  Also performing will be four-time national champions Kennesaw State University’s competitive cheerleading squad.

Support Clean Sport is an initiative organized by the nonprofit organization/NPO Anti-Doping Research, a leading sports research institute based in Los Angeles.  Proceeds from Support Clean Sport go toward supporting the vision of clean sport and ADR’s efforts to generate new initiatives and approaches that are conducive to clean sport.  Current Xterra Triathlon World Champion Shonny Vanlandingham is among those athletes who have joined Support Clean Sport.

For more information, visit Support Clean Sport’s website at www.supportcleansport.com, check out its page on Facebook, and follow it on Twitter
Video: Are you a Real Athlete?

#####

Egregious error in high-profile Sports Illustrated story by Selena Roberts & David Epstein exposed

Los Angeles,  March 29, 2011

Egregious Error in Sports Illustrated Story by Selena Roberts & David Epstein Exposed

USOC Committee Meeting Notes Reveal Truth

Anti-Doping Research (ADR) has obtained a copy of meeting notes of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) meeting of March 2000, referenced as “the minutes” in the misleading Jan. 24 Sports Illustrated Lance Armstrong story by Selena Roberts and David Epstein.  Attorneys at Time, Inc. finally provided an excerpt of the notes after repeated requests.

As suspected, the notes show that contrary to Roberts and Epstein’s claims, the committee, with Dr. Catlin often leading the way, was not only trying to do everything it could within the existing framework to ensure an effective doping system in the United States, it was attempting to raise the testing standards and make them more stringent for athletes.

The meeting notes are crucial for providing the appropriate context and demonstrate that Roberts and Epstein’s written and press interview statements charging that Dr. Catlin and officials discuss in the meeting how “to informally test athletes–not to sanction them but to help them avoid testing positive at the Olympics” are patently false.  Indeed, the writers and editor(s) either do not understand or willfully ignore the context of the discussion.

To help shed light on the situation and be as transparent as possible, Dr. Catlin and ADR are taking the step of releasing the USOC meeting notes.  Because the discussion is complex and difficult to follow, Dr. Catlin is offering a statement on the context of the meeting and an annotated version of the notes that adds helpful and insightful comments.  You may click the following links to pdfs of Dr. Catlin’s Statement and Annotated Notes as well as the Raw Version of the Notes.

The primary issue at hand was how to apply Dr. Catlin’s new, complex, and, at that time, legally untested Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) test to confirm testosterone use in U.S. athlete samples prior to the Summer Olympics in Sydney.  For his part, Dr. Catlin wanted to see his test implemented in the United States and was doing what he could to advance it.

“I want to see better and better doping (control),” he said.  “And it’s (the CIR test is) ready to go… and I submit that there’s tons and tons of political and legal reasons not to do it and to do it.  I’m making a statement that I’m willing to go to court to defend the test, and I wouldn’t have made that statement until very recently.”

The group was reviewing the rules for screening for testosterone use by applying the testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E) ratio to see how the follow-up CIR confirmation test could be applied.  A key issue discussed was what constituted an initial positive T/E finding.  According to the IOC, the relevant governing body at the time, only a sample with a T/E ratio of 6:1 or higher was an initial positive.  The IOC rules included the ability to use CIR for follow-up testing while the USOC protocol under discussion did not mention CIR use.

Dr. Catlin and others on the committee considered implementing tougher standards than the IOC rules allowed, by applying the CIR test to samples in which the T/E ratio was in the more stringent 4:1 to 6:1 range.  In fact, Dr. Catlin had lobbied the IOC to adopt the more stringent T/E range, a point he mentions in the meeting.  The meeting notes reveal the group struggling with how to use CIR for sanctioning purposes given the concern that prosecution of testosterone doping offenses in which the T/E ratio was less than 6:1 would be unsuccessful under the current IOC framework.

The members discussed if and how U.S. athletes should be introduced to the new test, with some wanting to warn athletes and others not wanting to warn them.  Those who argued for warning athletes were doing so out of a desire to compel as many of them as possible to clean up—the point of doping control—and for a time the IOC required such warnings.  Again contrary to Roberts and Epstein’s claims, Dr. Catlin argued that alerting the USOC, so that they could warn athletes, was not necessary.  “I don’t (care) whether you guys are alerted in advance,” he said.  “If we want to put a test in before the Games, we’ll do it.”

As a potential compromise, a committee member floated the idea of doing an informal study applying the CIR test to a group of 50 samples in which the T/E ratio measured in the more stringent 4:1 to 6:1 range.  The purpose of this proposal was to assess the potential of doping prevalence, as good, credible science-based anti-doping programs do.  Research studies are, by proper protocol, anonymous, as Dr. Catlin told the group.

Although Dr. Catlin believed in the science behind the CIR test and was pressing to use it for sanctioning purposes, he was open to the idea of a compromise because he believed that the results would help push the IOC to adopt the more stringent standard.  A precedent had been established with similar research conducted by the IOC at the 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics, he noted, though he remained, as always, opposed to “no-penalty testing.”

In the end the motion to conduct the research study was withdrawn, and no such study was conducted.  Five years later, in 2005, the World Anti-Doping Agency lowered the benchmark for an initial positive testosterone test result to a T/E ratio of 4:1.

The CIR test is considered revolutionary and has proven highly effective; despite many challenges by athletes testing positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport has never found any fault with it.

The blatant mischaracterization of the USOC meeting is merely one of several egregious errors Anti-Doping Research has found in the Jan. 24 Sports Illustrated feature story by Selena Roberts and David Epstein.

Amazon steroids not on Texas high school steroid testing lists

Many people have been discussing high school steroid testing and the effectiveness of the programs to control steroid use.  The largest such example, in fact one of the largest drug- testing programs in the world, is the University Interscholastic League (UIL) testing program in Texas.  

According to Jeff Miller’s article in the Dallas Morning News, “the Legislature initially funded the effort in 2007 with an annual budget of $3 million, but the allotment for the current school year is $750,000 – after a cut to $1 million a year earlier.” The statistics show 51,635 tests conducted from February 2008 through May 2010 with 21 positives for a positive rate of less than 0.0005% of the total.  The discussion over effectiveness, and indeed the utility of the money, rages and rightfully so. 

As the discussion continues, we reviewed the policies and the testing menu for potential sources of the issue and in hopes of addressing the problem that many believe remains.  Surprisingly, there are only ten steroids included in the testing panel according to information we reviewed from an Open Records Request, we will not list them here as we do not want to deleteriously impact the program.  Meanwhile, the UIL Anabolic Steroid List for 2010-11 is posted on its website and contains 36 anabolic steroids (33 actually as two are duplicate listings and one is not a known steroid under the name listed).  It lists those compounds “contained in section 481.104 of the Texas Health and Safety Code.”  

Unfortunately and of significant concern is that neither of these lists include steroids that until recently were available on Amazon.com.  A drug like methasterone, otherwise known as Superdrol, is not on either list.  It was for sale under the name CEL M-Drol on Amazon.com until we exposed it early this year.  After we helped break the story with Amy Shipley in the Washington Post on January 19, the product was removed from the site.  So too were CEL’s X-Tren and P-Plex, which contain the steroids ‘Tren’ and Madol as we described in our post on the topic.  Again, neither appears to be included on the lists governing UIL testing.  

For a program to be effective, it needs to test for the steroids that remain widely available, as they are one click away from the students.  If we are correct in our analysis of the lists and the program coverage then you could take any of the three products above and not test positive in the UIL program, and that is simply not acceptable.  Unfortunately, the options do not end with the CEL products.  Many other steroids remain for sale on Amazon.com and other online retailers today with names that are not included in the UIL program or other high school testing programs.  

We are certainly supporters of high school drug-testing programs and believe that they can be effective, even given the more limited per person high school testing budget.  The first step to that aim is to ensure the menu covers the new steroid options that continue to appear online daily.