The Rio Olympics, the Russian Doping Scandal, Dietary Supplements and Banned Substances in Sport

DSCN0492A Discussion with Dr. Don H. Catlin and Oliver Catlin

Don H. Catlin, M.D., a renowned longtime sports anti-doping researcher, is considered a father of drug testing in sport. He founded the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory prior to the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics and served as its director for 25 years, growing it into the world’s largest lab testing for performance-enhancing drugs. Today, among other things, he is Chief Science Officer at BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), a leading provider of analytical testing and certification programs for dietary supplements, natural products, ingredient suppliers and manufacturing facilities.

Oliver Catlin is president of BSCG. A well-respected executive, he has been working in the arenas of sports anti-doping and dietary supplements for more than a decade.

Catlins

Dr. Don Catlin, left, and Oliver Catlin

In the interview that follows, Dr. Catlin and Mr. Catlin discuss the upcoming summer Olympic Games in Rio, the Russian doping scandal and dietary supplement issues related to drugs in sport.

 

Q. Dr. Catlin, as a former longtime member of the IOC (International Olympic Committee) Medical Commission, how do you feel about the IOC’s recent decision not to ban all Russian athletes at the Rio Olympics?

Dr. Catlin: I was not happy to wake up a few days ago to the news that the IOC did not ban Russian athletes from competing at the Summer Olympic Games in Rio. I was hoping to see a serious statement made against the practice of state-sponsored doping. Instead the IOC turned the decision over to International Federations and an IOC executive committee. Several high-level recent reports (McLaren, WADA report 1C, German television ARD) established that the state of Russia was clearly involved with directing doping activities in an operation that included,Russian lab director Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the state ministry of sport, and the FSB security forces (renamed from the KGB). The extent of the activities warranted a ban in my view. This decision presented an opportunity for the IOC to show its dedication to anti-doping ideals and make a serious statement in support of clean sport, but sadly they failed to make that statement

Mr. Catlin: If we don’t stand up for anti-doping in this instance, when will we? I think that perhaps the consideration of a complete ban was challenged by a lack of precedence for banning an entire country as a result of anti-doping as well as liability concerns. Clean athletes were going to be harmed whether a total ban was enacted or not; arguably more clean athletes are impacted by not proceeding with a ban. Although I don’t believe there is a precedent for keeping an entire country out of the Games due to systemic doping, there is perhaps a precedent for systemic doping factoring into whether a sport is allowed to remain an Olympic sport. It was not long ago that the status of baseball and softball as Olympic sports were affected in large part due to concerns over systemic doping in baseball. Surely a number of clean athletes were affected by the decision to remove these sports, and for a longer period of time than the Russian ban was being considered. Liability is also perhaps a concern. With gold medals being worth upwards of $10 million or more, the risk of Russian athletes suing for damages may have been a factor in the IOC’s decision.

 

Q. What do you make of Sochi Olympics lab director Dr. Rodchenkov’s claims that he helped to oversee the systematic doping of Russian Olympic athletes at the behest of the Russian government?

Dr. Catlin: I was deeply disappointed to learn that Grigory Rodchenkov, someone I had called a friend and a colleague, had become a central figure in the Russian doping scandal that has spanned many years. In an in-depth interview with the New York Times in May, Dr. Rodchenkov revealed his role in doping Russian athletes. He did this by providing cocktails of drugs that were designed to clear the system quickly, aiding Russian agencies in a scheme to cover up positive test results, and in the case of Sochi testing he participated in an elaborate sample switching scheme enabled by the FSB. Dr. Rodchenkov remained in the lab from midnight to dawn. He knew which samples were positive. He passed those through a hole in the wall to an FSB agent, who used a new technique to open the tamper proof bottles and replace the positive urine with a clean sample. The bottles were closed and passed back to the lab for testing. It is hard for me to stomach that kind of deceit from someone I had known for many years. Thankfully, most of the lab directors in the WADA system are dedicated and ethical scientists who work hard to defend anti-doping and clean sport.

Mr. Catlin: I think most observers of the Russian doping scandal realize that Russia presents a very different environment. There is often no option other than to follow state directives. Ramifications of challenging the state can be severe. The recent McLaren report noted that the Russian laboratory personnel did not have a choice in whether to be involved in the state-directed system; their employment required participation. We are focused on the current scandal but I think it is fair to say that this is not the first occasion that my father, or the larger anti-doping community, have been suspicious of Russian doping. Nor is Russia alone in having issues, we have seen problems previously with Chinese swimmers, East German athletes, and even in the U.S. with result shredding scandals and ‘educational’ testing in the 80’s.

 

Q. Some have gone so far as to suggest that systematic doping threatens the very existence of the Olympics. How concerned are you that we could actually reach a tipping point where the general public might no longer believe the Olympics is a fair competition?

Dr. Catlin: The Olympics have been involved with controversies for many years, including doping scandals. I think back to the Ben Johnson affair at the 1988 Summer Olympics at Seoul, South Korea, and what that did to shake up the system at the time. The Olympics have survived all such controversies in the past and will likely survive this one. It is true that each drug scandal takes its toll, and this one is pretty gross. But a scandal can also help expose systemic weakness, which if addressed, can improve anti-doping efforts for the future.

Mr. Catlin: It’s sad that the Russian doping scandal has cast a pall over the Rio Olympics. The silver lining is that it has put the anti-doping issue on center stage, as it should be given its importance to the Olympic family. Years ago, my father helped to create the International Olympic Charter against Doping in Sport, and hopefully commitment to those ideas will help lead us past the current situation. The important thing is for us to recognize the problems and find real solutions.

 

Q. What changes or solutions do you think are necessary to protect against these kinds of concerns at the Olympics in the future?

Dr. Catlin: One thing we need to evaluate is the process involved in reviewing and reporting positive results and to create more oversight when it comes to results management. For years we have put result management largely in the hands of stakeholders without adequate independent review. In WADA’s review and criticism of its own activities a year or two ago, they suggested they needed more commitment and participation on behalf of stakeholders. If we continue to allow results decisions to be managed by state sport agencies or federations like IAAF, we face the risk of result manipulation. Decision-making is not always in the hands of the experts anymore. Twenty years ago the IOC doping control system was largely managed by a group of lab directors and scientific experts. Today the IOC has abdicated much of the responsibility and expertise and put it on the shoulders of WADA, an administrative body. In its zeal to conduct its mission, WADA has at times created an adversarial relationship with lab directors, which can diminish their impact and value. I would like to see the system return to a more collegial process in the future.

Mr. Catlin: In addition to added oversight, I think we need to review the resources available to the pursuit of anti-doping. The world expects a lot out of anti-doping forces, and rightly so, but the resources also have to be there to support the task at hand. The worldwide budget for anti-doping is perhaps $300 million. That sounds like a lot until you consider that we have to test a pool of 100,000 or more athletes around the globe, staff and maintain more than 35 laboratories, and must create methods to find clandestine and evolving doping agents and improve detection capabilities. The resources dopers have to thwart the system have been shown to far exceed the resources we have available to fight for clean sport.

 

Q. Russian media outlets and others in Russia have asked you what can be done to legitimize the participation of their athletes in this summer’s Olympics. What do you tell them?

Dr. Catlin: It is hard to evaluate things on an athlete-by-athlete basis with the extent of the Russian doping now exposed. Some may have been effectively tested outside of the Russian system and perhaps those athletes could be allowed to participate legitimately. Ultimately, Russia needs to replace all the agencies that have been involved and put a new person in charge, someone who is clearly not involved with doping, and then build from there. The process will not be quick or easy. The international community needs to ensure oversight in the process in order for us to trust the new system.

Mr. Catlin: The big question is what percentage of Russian Olympic athletes were involved in the state sponsored doping; 5%, 20%, 50%? It spanned many athletes and sports based on the report statistics, but I don’t know if we really have all the necessary facts to answer that question. Were other undetectable drugs being used that we don’t yet know about that might still be in use? I am not aware of any consistent guidelines being used to consider whether Russian athletes should be allowed to participate, and without those how do we come to consistent decisions?

 

Q. What are your thoughts about the retesting of samples from the 2012 London Summer Olympics and the 2008 Beijing Games that have led to a number of positive test results?

Dr. Catlin: This is a marvelous idea, and one that I supported over the years. It puts the doper at risk of being penalized for activities that may have been undetectable at the time.  The testing methods are always improving and sometimes it takes anti-doping science a few years to develop an effective test for drugs that we know are being abused. This is a great mechanism for dissuading athletes from pursuing clandestine doping strategies.  The IOC has shown that retesting is a potent addition to the process.

Mr. Catlin: Retesting has certainly proven to be valuable. Historically there are usually only a handful of positive results that occur during an Olympic Games. The retesting has exposed three times as many results per Olympics, sometimes even more. The added deterrence is certainly significant. The shame is that the doper benefits for several years to the detriment of the clean athletes that get elevated in placement years later.

 

Q. Dr. Catlin, you voiced concerns in media interviews about WADA’s closure of the Rio Olympic laboratory weeks before the Olympics were about to begin. Are you glad the lab has been reaccredited and will now handle the drug testing after all?

Dr. Catlin:  Yes, I am very pleased that the lab has been reaccredited. There is much secretiveness about WADA’s actions so we never, if ever, know what the extent of the problem was that led to the loss of accreditation. While it is possible to send the samples to another lab, doing so is difficult and expensive and has many complications. Whenever the Olympics come to town the home country’s lab receives support from experts from around the globe and I have faith that the group assembled will do a great job of conducting the testing during the Rio Games.

Mr. Catlin: Some people have considered the loss of accreditation to be a flaw in the system, when in fact it is evidence of the system working. If deficiencies are found, they are identified and addressed.

 

Q. The drugs meldonium and oral-turinabol/dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (DHCMT) have been in the news lately. What impact, if any, do you think these substances might have at the Rio Olympics?

Dr. Catlin: I don’t think that either drug will have a major impact on the Games. The lack of consideration of meldonium withdrawal times was embarrassing and certainly resulted in a lot of wasted money and effort, but we are mostly beyond that at this point. As for oral-turinabol, or DHCMT, I do not know why there have been so many positive cases recently. The testing method for DHCMT was improved in the last few years with the detection of long-term metabolites extending the detection window from several days to several months. Perhaps that is one reason. Unfortunately, the drug remains prevalent online and has been seen as a contaminant in dietary supplement products as well. If the drug infiltrates the raw material supply for supplements, it could lead to trace amounts of contamination that the new urine-testing methodology would be more likely to expose.

Mr. Catlin: I think some athletes continue to claim they were affected by discrepancies in meldonium findings before or after the cutoff dates for withdrawal time to be considered a valid reason for a positive finding. This might impact which athletes get to participate in the Rio Games. In the case of meldonium, the WADA system addressed a substance that athletes were apparently using for performance enhancement. In the case of DHCMT, the system is now using an improved method that has a longer window of detection. In either case, additional loopholes were closed, which would seem to be good for the system overall.

 

Q. As key figures in both overseeing the testing of Olympic athletes and helping to protect them by providing quality supplement information, testing and certification, what general advice do you offer Olympic athletes about consumption of supplements?

Dr. Catlin: There have been numerous examples where athletes have been harmed by supplements that were spiked with drugs on the WADA Prohibited List. Over the years I helped a number of athletes fight cases against supplement companies after they had tested positive. That is one reason we created BSCG. Athletes should be cautious when considering supplements and should only take those that have been tested to make sure they are ‘clean.’

BSCG_FNLMr. Catlin: We have worked on a number of cases over the years where supplements have been involved in a positive drug test in some fashion and have impacted careers or health. Athletes like Kicker Vencill, Jareem Gunter, and Jessica Hardy. The issues involved are complex. Some supplements include active ingredients that may be banned substances in disguise. That was the case with the Superdrol product Gunter used; it contained the powerful anabolic steroid methasterone, which also contributed to his liver failure. Other products can be contaminated with trace amounts of banned substances that can still result in a positive drug test. This was the case with Hardy, who, as a result of using a supplement, lost out on her chance to compete in the 2008 Olympic Games in the prime of her career. We started our company BSCG to test and certify products to be free of banned substances so that athletes could have confidence when using them, and to give responsible supplement manufacturers a way to distinguish themselves from others in the industry. If athletes elect to use supplements—as many do, surveys have shown—we recommend they only consume products that have been certified by a reputable third party.

Two Female Sports Reporters Among the Best in the Business

We were saddened to learn last week of the abuse female sports reporters frequently endure via social media forums such as Twitter and in e-mails. The hate-filled messages, usually from men, include such things as wanting to see the women murdered, raped, or beaten by their boyfriends. Vile doesn’t seem a strong enough word to describe these taunts.

The video of the words being read aloud by uninvolved men to some of the female sports reporters in question is heartbreaking and infuriating. Who do the men behind these messages think they are? Besides lacking common decency, we know one thing they are not: informed.

Over the past three decades, journalists from print, radio, and television have interviewed our esteemed anti-doping guru, Dr. Don Catlin, countless times. Sometimes it relates to his experience directing the first sports anti-doping lab in the United States, the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, or about the many tests he’s developed to detect performance-enhancing drugs such as the first designer steroid, norbolethone; the T/E ratio test used to distinguish natural from synthetic testosterone; or THG. More recently, it often regards his experience overseeing the testing of dietary supplement products for the trusted third-party supplement certification program BSCG Certified Drug Free® or includes his insights about the use of drugs in the headlines such as meldonium, hGH, or FG-4592.

DSCN0492

Interview with Dr. Don Catlin in 2008. Photo by Oliver Catlin.

Throughout this span of time, Dr. Catlin has been interviewed by hundreds of journalists of every stripe. Among just a handful who have stood out and risen to the top are Amy Shipley, formerly with the Washington Post, and The New York TimesJuliet Macur, who wrote the newspaper’s story about the misogynistic messages. He has worked with both women on multiple stories over the years, and found both to be exceptional professionals.

In their own ways, Shipley and Macur have demonstrated themselves to be consistently fair, perceptive, thorough, and undaunted in asking a range of questions, doing extensive research, and covering subjects others might have overlooked or been intimated by. Their stories have been accurate, smart, and well written. In our eyes, these two women have helped lead the field of sports reporting.

Juliet Macur’s reporting of the doping challenges facing cycling outpaced others in the field and didn’t come about via conjecture, rumor, or bias as did some others’ work. Her subsequent book on Lance Armstrong’s fall demonstrated the breadth and depth of her reporting and writing skills.

Nearly 30 years ago in the 1980s, Amy Shipley contacted Dr. Catlin, wanting to know what his lab did and how they did it. He suggested she fly out to see how it all worked—and she did. The result was an extensive, in-depth piece on the science of anti-doping testing, including the use of gas chromatography mass spectrometry—not a typical topic for a daily newspaper.

In 2005, when Dr. Catlin discovered a performance-enhancing drug, the designer steroid methasterone, masquerading as a dietary supplement product, he reached out to Shipley to warn athletes. She broke the story that November, which reverberated through the industry, leading to a focus on pro-hormone supplements and ultimately an FDA raid in 2009 of Bodybuilding.com, which remains as one of the largest enforcement actions to date in the supplement industry. Methasterone was soon added to the WADA Prohibited List, and Superdrol and other similar supplement products containing the substance were eventually pulled from the marketplace.

The article prompted a loud response on the muscle boards and discussion sites, many of which included hate-filled messages and even death threats directed at Ms. Shipley and Dr. Catlin. A perfect example of the kind of vitriol that can come from journalism that pushes the envelope and exposes issues of concern to sport that also has larger impacts on the general public.

In 2006, two years before the first positive test result in sports, Shipley wrote of Dr. Catlin’s analysis of the new designer stimulant methylhexaneamine, which was being used as an ingredient in dietary supplements. Her exposé led to further evaluation of this dangerous compound, which was added to the WADA Prohibited List in 2009 and has since become the third most reported drug in the WADA system.

These are just a few examples of contributions female journalists have made to sport. Those who seek to offend and hurl scorn at female sports reporters need to be aware of the impact these dedicated, hardworking, and talented women have made in the sports realm. Shipley, Macur, and others like them, have more than earned a right to work in the field of sports reporting and deserve nothing less than our praise and our thanks for their fortitude and great work.

New Sports Doping Agent FG-4592 Not the Only HIF Drug Available to Athletes

fg-4592 What drugs are athletes using to dope? This is one of the most commonly asked questions in the realm of sports anti-doping. Recently the answer has been provided in glaring form. During the week of July 29, Dr. Don Catlin, BSCG’s chief science officer and former longtime director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, was interviewed by the New York Times regarding a new drug called FG-4592, which was detected in tests of at least two elite cyclists.

AstraZeneca, one of the drugs’ developers, summarizes FG-4592 as “a small molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase. HIF is a protein that responds to oxygen changes in the cellular environment and meets the body’s demands for oxygen by inducing erythropoiesis, the process by which red blood cells are produced.”

FG-4592 is available in pill form and is orally active, unlike its cousin, recombinant erythropoietin, or EPO, which must be injected. Some have dubbed FG-4592 as oxygen in pill form. This new drug is a breakthrough for anemia treatment and other similar blood ailments.  doping-271623_640Unfortunately, an effective blood boosting drug in pill form is also the Holy Grail for endurance dopers. Though FG-4592 remains in third-stage clinical trials around the world, it is widely available as a research chemical on the Internet. Its apparent arrival in elite sport is troubling, yet predictable.

Similar to EPO, HIF drugs like FG-4592 help increase oxygen carrying capacity by spurring the production of red blood cells. Some researchers believe HIF stabilizers might be even more effective than EPO as they can help stimulate iron absorption and suppress the inflammation of cytokines.[1] FG-4592 was recently added to the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) Prohibited List for 2015, as have cobalt and other HIF stabilizers and activators in general.  No other HIF drugs are named though they would be prohibited if they are detected.

According to PubChem’s listing of Chemical Vendors, there are 18 suppliers of FG-4592 worldwide . One of the vendors, the Houston-based company APExBIO, has eight HIF-related biochemicals available on its website including BAY 87-2243, 2-Methoxyestradiol, PX 12, ML 228, KC7F2, Chetomin, DMOG, and its top seller, IOX2 (Glycine). On PubChem, there are 251 Related Compounds with Annotation to explore.

Recent positive drug tests of two elite cyclists suggest athletes have managed to obtain FG-4592 for use as a performance-enhancer. Though the chemical vendors listed on PubMed are not marketing the drug to athletes, another site does not seem as scrupulous, as it sells research peptides like FG-4592 alongside an array of “performance enhancers.”  Some research peptides at www.superhumanstore.com overlap the list of performance enhancers. Numerous drugs on the WADA Prohibited List are available on this site including Aicar, CJC-1295 (a growth hormone secretagogue), Erythropoietin-mimetic peptide 17 (EMP17), GHRP-2, Sermorelin, Thymosin Beta- 4 and more. Similar drugs are available that are not included on the WADA Prohibited List by name, like BAY 87-2243 and Follistatin 344 (a myostatin inhibitor).

The average cyclists pictureprofessional cyclist in the UCI Tour makes $142,000, according to Ernst & Young.  Top riders can earn up to $5 million. Currently, the average dose of FG-4592 is recommended at 1-2mg/kg, 3 times a week, so $780 for 500mg will buy a two- week’s supply. An athlete could buy a year’s supply for around $20,280. This is a relatively affordable rate, even to an average Tour rider. With the difference between the average salary and the top salaries in elite cycling so significant, the financial incentives to use this new drug, or its cousins, remains high.

The good news is FG-4592 is detectable with drug tests. Similar developing drugs will undoubtedly be pursued and tried by athletes in the not-too-distant future. Whether these other options, particularly those not specified on the WADA Prohibited List, are detectable only time will tell. One thing history has proven, these will not be the last athletes to test positive for a new sports doping agent.

By Oliver Catlin and Joe Taylor

[1] Medscape  (http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/548667)

BSCG CERTIFIED DRUG FREE® CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ADDRESSES UNMET SUPPLEMENT ADULTERATION CONCERNS, AN ANALYSIS OF FDA STATISTICS CONFIRMS

BSCG Header imageFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 16, 2015

BSCG CERTIFIED DRUG FREE® PROGRAM ADDRESSES UNMET SUPPLEMENT ADULTERATION CONCERNS, AN ANALYSIS OF FDA STATISTICS CONFIRMS 

BSCG is the first to offer protection against drugs not banned in sport

(Los Angeles) – In broadening its services to include a range of new protections against supplement adulteration, including an expanded drug-testing menu for the protection of general consumers, BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), a highly regarded independent dietary supplement certification provider, is filling important unmet needs in the realm of supplement quality control.  An analysis of the FDA’s Tainted Supplements List reveals that 76% of the hidden drugs found in supplements are not banned in sport—substances that only BSCG’s pioneering program covers.

The FDA’s testing has shown that products may contain harmful compounds falling outside the scope of those banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and elite and professional sports leagues including antihistamines, muscle relaxers, pain killers, weight loss drugs, PDE-5 inhibitors like sildenafil, and more dangerous agents. As the FDA warns, “this list only includes a small fraction of the potentially hazardous products with hidden ingredients.” BSCG is the only certification provider to focus on this concern.

“We knew that the FDA was finding a lot of prescription and over-the-counter drugs not banned in sport in the course of their testing,” said Oliver Catlin, BSCG President. “Recognizing the associated risks, we added those drugs and related compounds to our menu. We’re proud to take the lead in offering additional protection against these substances that are important for the protection of the general consumer.”

BSCG’s industry-leading drug testing menu includes more than 392 compounds, of which 185 are prescription or over-the-counter drugs and 207 are drugs banned in sport. BSCG not only has become the first certification program to safeguard against drugs not banned in sport but also offers the broadest and most finely tuned protection available in the supplement certification industry against substances prohibited by WADA, NFL, MLB, PGA, LPGA, NHL, MLS, ATP, WTA, NCAA, NASCAR and other sporting groups.

BSCG_FNLFounded in 2004 in Los Angeles by renowned sports anti-doping pioneer Don Catlin, M.D., his son, industry leader Oliver Catlin and respected attorney Ryan Connolly, BSCG grew out of the desire to protect elite athletes and professionals from ingesting hidden substances in supplement products that could lead to health concerns and positive drug tests. No product BSCG has certified has ever led to a positive drug test. In late 2014, the third-party company released its new BSCG Certified Drug Free® program.

In addition to security against drug contamination, the BSCG program includes annual testing for label claims and toxic contaminants and a Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) audit. With fervent recent regulatory actions in New York and other states and added scrutiny on compliance with FDA’s 21 C.F.R. 111 – GMP quality control guidelines has come a renewed focus on ensuring that supplement products meet ingredient and finished product specifications for identity, purity, strength and composition and have been appropriately tested for potential contamination.

“Supplement consumers deserve assurance that products are not only drug free but that they meet label claim and contamination specifications and standards,” said Catlin. “BSCG recognizes the importance of these quality control elements and is pleased to include them as part our supplement certification services.”

The BSCG Certified Drug Free® program represents the gold standard in dietary supplement certification and can be applied to finished products, raw materials or manufacturing facilities. The Athlete Assurance Program offers protection directly to teams, leagues or individuals. BSCG’s certification allows clients to establish products and brands as reputable and drug free and offers assurance on product integrity to consumers and athletes. Look for the BSCG Certified Drug Free® seal.

For more about BSCG and the BSCG Certified Drug Free® program, call 1-800-920-6605 or e-mail info@bscg.org, visit its website at www.bscg.org and download its free brochure. Join Banned Substances Control Group on Facebook and @BSCGCertified on Twitter.

================================================================

For press inquiries, contact info@bscg.org or 800-920-6605, or Joseph Taylor, BSCG Public Relations Consultant, at joseph.taylor.pr@gmail.com.

Dietary Supplement Certification – BSCG Certified Drug Free®

BSCG_FNLDear friends, colleagues and fellow professionals in the anti-doping and supplement industries,

A decade ago our company Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG) helped found a nascent industry focused on dietary supplement certification to provide assurance that products are free of banned substances in sport.  We are pleased to have been a leader in the field since 2004 working with more than 40 companies to certify more than 100 products. As we look to the future, BSCG is leading the industry forward once again with our gold standard BSCG Certified Drug Free® program.

Our foundational supplement certification program was designed for the protection of elite athletes and professionals targeting drugs prohibited in sport—and this still remains a primary focus. We also realized that athletes are not the only consumers facing risks of drug contamination, nor are banned substances in sport the only culprits.  BSCG has responded by broadening our testing menu to focus on drugs of concern not only to athletes but to general consumers and also animals.

The BSCG Certified Drug Free® standard testing menu covers more than 392 drugs, including 207 banned in sport and 185 prescription and over-the-counter drugs not banned in sport. Our optional equine and canine screen includes more than 1,200 drugs banned by the Federation Equine International (FEI) offering protection to racing animals and against feed contamination concerns. With this expanded menu the BSCG Certified Drug Free® program not only offers the best protection available to athletes and sport nutrition products but is the first to safeguard against additional drugs relevant across the spectrum of consumers and products.

Protection against adulteration with drugs is only one element of the BSCG Certified Drug Free® program. With a growing focus on quality control in general, athletes, consumers, nutritionists, doctors, trainers, sport regulators, among others, are starting to demand assurances that products meet quality specifications and are free of toxic contaminants. Recognizing the importance of these elements, BSCG includes annual contaminant and label verification testing and an audit for 21C.F.R.111 – GMP compliance in its program.

The BSCG Certified Drug Free® program, which can be applied to raw materials and manufacturing facilities as well as supplement products, is the most complete quality control solution available in the dietary supplement industry. Our mission is to ensure products and ingredients are free of drugs and other harmful agents that can lead to health concerns or positive drug tests and that quality control specifications are met. Our certification allows clients to establish their products as reputable and drug free and provides athletes and consumers with trusted supplement options.

To explore our program further please download the BSCG Certified Drug Free® brochure. We are always happy to provide further education and support on supplement or anti-doping topics.  Please contact us at 1-800-920-6605, e-mail us at info@bscg.org, or explore our website at www.bscg.org. Thank you in advance for your consideration, we welcome your feedback and comments.

Sincerely,
Oliver Catlin
BSCG President

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.